Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Fate (disambiguation)

2008-11-27T00:51:18Z

76.224.68.237: /* Computing */

{{wiktionarypar|fate|Fate}}{{TOC_right}}

'''Fate''' may refer to:

* [[Destiny]], an inevitable course of events
* [[Fatalism]], a philosophical doctrine

==Computing==
* [[Fate (1996 game)|''Fate'' (1996 game)]], an unpublished computer game
* [[Fate (video game)|''Fate'' (video game)]], a 2005 computer action RPG
* ''[[Fate: Gates of Dawn]]'', a 1991 computer role-playing game
* [[FATE (Chrono Cross)]], a powerful entity in the video game ''Chrono Cross''
This is a highly recomended game

==Literature==
* [[Fate (magazine)|''Fate'' (magazine)]], a magazine of paranormal phenomena
* [[Doctor Fate]], a succession of DC Comics sorcerer characters, first published in 1940
** [[Fate (comics)]], a character associated with Doctor Fate, or the eponymous comics series
* ''[[Fate/stay night]]'', a Japanese visual novel and its adaptations


==Music==
* [[Fate (band)]], a Danish heavy metal band
* [[Fate (Dr. Dog album)|''Fate'' (Dr. Dog album)]]
* [[Fate (Velvet Acid Christ album)|''Fate'' (Velvet Acid Christ album)]]
* ''[[Fate: The Best of Death]]'', an album
* [[Fate (1953 song)|"Fate" (1953 song)]], a song from the musical ''Kismet''
* [[Fate (Bleak song)|"Fate" (Bleak song)]]
* "Fate", a song by Chaka Khan from ''[[What Cha' Gonna Do For Me (Chaka Khan album)|What Cha' Gonna Do For Me]]''
* [[Fates (Erik Mongrain album)|''Fates'' (Erik Mongrain album)]], or the title song

==Other uses==
* [[Fate, Texas]], U.S.
* [[FATE (role-playing game system)|''FATE'' (role-playing game system)]], Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment, a 2003 generic role-playing game
* [[Fate (In the Heat of the Night)|"Fate" (''In the Heat of the Night'')]], an episode of the television series ''In the Heat of the Night''
* [[Fate Testarossa]], a character in the anime series [[Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha]] and its sequels

==See also==
*[[The Fates (disambiguation)]]
*[[Fatal (disambiguation)]]
*[[Fête]], a French word meaning festival or holiday

{{disambig}}

[[de:Fate]]
[[it:Fate]]
[[ja:フェイト]]
[[sk:Fate]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-08T03:14:25Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ tried to eliminate the redundant read of the Paragraph

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday people to be PC users.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

Criticism of the campaign, mostly found on Internet technology portals and blogs, focused around two allegations: that the commercials had been crafted, at least in part, using Apple hardware, and that some of the celebrities had used or supported various Apple products, one as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), another as supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The link between the commercials and Apple machines was initially noted by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref>, who found traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine published similar findings, noting that when the file properties of those images (found on the Microsoft press site) are examined the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> According to an InformationWeek blog, Microsoft responded overnight to the criticism by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-08T03:11:04Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ inserted language to reflect the cite

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday people to be PC users.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

Criticism of the campaign, mostly found on Internet technology portals and blogs, focused around two allegations: that the commercials had been crafted, at least in part, using Apple hardware, and that some of the celebrities had used or supported various Apple products.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The link between the commercials and Apple machines was initially noted by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref>, who found traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine published similar findings, noting that when the file properties of those images (found on the Microsoft press site) are examined the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> According to an InformationWeek blog, Microsoft responded overnight to the criticism by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-08T03:08:48Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ inserted language to accurately reflect the cite

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday people to be PC users.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

Criticism of the campaign, mostly found on Internet technology portals and blogs, focused around two allegations: that the commercials had been crafted, at least in part, using Apple hardware, and that the celebrities declaring "I'm a PC" were Apple users or advocates.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The link between the commercials and Apple machines was initially noted by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref>, who found traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine published similar findings, noting that when the file properties of those images (found on the Microsoft press site) are examined the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> According to an InformationWeek blog, Microsoft responded overnight to the criticism by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T23:32:38Z

76.224.68.237: agree with the less fluff - but I would substitute this detail for the other when going for "concise". Hope you find this OK

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday people to be PC users.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

Criticism of the campaign, mostly found on Internet technology portals and blogs, focused around two allegations: that the commercials had been crafted using Apple hardware, and that the celebrities declaring "I'm a PC" were Apple users or advocates.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The link between the commercials and Apple machines was initially noted by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref>, who found traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine published similar findings, noting that when the file properties of those images (found on the Microsoft press site) are examined the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> According to an InformationWeek blog, Microsoft responded overnight to the criticism by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T22:57:53Z

76.224.68.237: Reinstated my Section yet again and Removed my quoting of Arcayne. It's an individual topic having nothing to do with the section "Relevance of Vista"

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

{{Archive box|box-width=150px
|[[/Archive1|Archive 1]]
}}
== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::As I have said before, I am not immediately opposed to some of the edits (even though, there appears to be a tendency to tout sources supporting MS's marketing while simultaneously downplaying or simply removing any Apple info); I simply think that - because of the scale at which they are being introduced - discussion is helpful. Tossing out twenty-plus edits and expecting individual editors to act on a single edit in the middle of the two dozen edits where the citation was removed, the text rewritten and a completely different citation added seems a significant expenditure of time. Why not make sure the edits will stay by discussing them first? Why does the user have to be warned that they are at the electric fence of 3RR before they even approach the discussion page?
:::Seriously, some of these need discussion ''before'' being added, as per BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign ==

:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for coming to discussion, though you are a little late in doing so. Maybe you could defend your edits that you feel are worth reverting others three times to preserve. Do them point by point, as - personally speaking - am a bit concerned over the removal of any errors of MS's ad campaign as well as any reference to the Apple campaign that this particular ad campaign was supposed to counter (though MS is now spinning it that its part of a larger campaign). - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::It would have been better to have discussed these changes ahead of time, but I actually agree that most of them were helpful - a few were edits that I had planned on making myself (such as removing the "negative reaction" to the commercials bit that was unsourced and contradicted by the Times article). I think folks should stop revert warring over this, and start identifying what if anything needs to be reinserted. All in all, for a fairly minor subject, the article is in OK shape. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I would tend to disagree, as many of the edits seem to downplay that MS made any mistake at all, and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. Point by point approach would seem to be the best way to address these edits, as there is sure to be some dissent for some of them. I don't mind waiting for the anon to be unblocked, so he can contribute to the discussion.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I think when you use the term Intro, you actually mean [[WP:LEAD|Lead]], right? Its an important distinction, as the Lead is not only an intro to the subject matter but also a summary of the article. As well, information that is likely to require links should be done at the first instance of usage (ergo, the linking of the Apple campaign). That the subject of the article is a campaign which specifically seeks to counter the impact of the challenger brand, it deserves discussion. Does that mean that other citations cannot be ''added''? Heck no. Please, find citations and statements to add to the article discussing in depth the ad campaign; tearing down what is already in place seems to benefit no one (well, except for someone trying to hamstring the article so that it ends up at AfD, which I am sure isn't the case here), except Gates and Company.
::Expand the article, adding parts that provide more than just the bad news about how Microsoft cocked up a few times, and the balance that some seem to feel is lacking will indeed emerge. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Desperate need for wikignoming ==

The second and third sections of this article have terrible grammar. I recognise there are other disputes about content going on, but it would be nice if someone made the article readable while the content issues are being worked out here on the talk page. I won't be able to work on it for several hours - fingers crossed someone else beats me to it. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've done a bit, but I can't say it will survive the back and forth that is currently diverting the attention of various editors. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protected ==

<s>This article is semi-protected for 72 hours to address the repeated insertion of disputed material by an anonymous IP editor. The anonymous editor is urged strongly to come to this page and discuss the disputed content. Should the content dispute come to an amicable resolution prior to the end of the semi-protection, any administrator may be asked to make an <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> edit or to lift the protection. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
::Reverted to non-protected mode. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to point out that the anon was blocked for 3RR. Yer a lot quicker on the draw, partmer. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]==

:The comparison of this campaign to the Apple Mac V PC is a given, and is discussed at length. Check the Intro, about 50% is just that - and it includes a hypertext link to [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]. In the second section, "Campaign", again nearly 50% of the entire section deals with that, it is both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 4 paragraphs in the section. I think, at half the content (not including the significant and possibly majority share that is the "criticism" section), it is given significant attention.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T21:44:45Z

76.224.68.237: Recreated my section, it's a specific topic

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

{{Archive box|box-width=150px
|[[/Archive1|Archive 1]]
}}
== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::As I have said before, I am not immediately opposed to some of the edits (even though, there appears to be a tendency to tout sources supporting MS's marketing while simultaneously downplaying or simply removing any Apple info); I simply think that - because of the scale at which they are being introduced - discussion is helpful. Tossing out twenty-plus edits and expecting individual editors to act on a single edit in the middle of the two dozen edits where the citation was removed, the text rewritten and a completely different citation added seems a significant expenditure of time. Why not make sure the edits will stay by discussing them first? Why does the user have to be warned that they are at the electric fence of 3RR before they even approach the discussion page?
:::Seriously, some of these need discussion ''before'' being added, as per BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign ==

:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for coming to discussion, though you are a little late in doing so. Maybe you could defend your edits that you feel are worth reverting others three times to preserve. Do them point by point, as - personally speaking - am a bit concerned over the removal of any errors of MS's ad campaign as well as any reference to the Apple campaign that this particular ad campaign was supposed to counter (though MS is now spinning it that its part of a larger campaign). - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::It would have been better to have discussed these changes ahead of time, but I actually agree that most of them were helpful - a few were edits that I had planned on making myself (such as removing the "negative reaction" to the commercials bit that was unsourced and contradicted by the Times article). I think folks should stop revert warring over this, and start identifying what if anything needs to be reinserted. All in all, for a fairly minor subject, the article is in OK shape. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I would tend to disagree, as many of the edits seem to downplay that MS made any mistake at all, and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. Point by point approach would seem to be the best way to address these edits, as there is sure to be some dissent for some of them. I don't mind waiting for the anon to be unblocked, so he can contribute to the discussion.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]==

:You may be just a little off there when you say, ''"and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. "''. It is a given, and is discussed at length. Check the Intro, about 50% is just that - and it includes a hypertext link to [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]. In the second section, "Campaign", again nearly 50% of the entire section deals with that, it is both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 4 paragraphs in the section. I think, at half the content (not including the significant and possibly majority share that is the "criticism" section), it is given significant attention.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::I think when you use the term Intro, you actually mean [[WP:LEAD|Lead]], right? Its an important distinction, as the Lead is not only an intro to the subject matter but also a summary of the article. As well, information that is likely to require links should be done at the first instance of usage (ergo, the linking of the Apple campaign). That the subject of the article is a campaign which specifically seeks to counter the impact of the challenger brand, it deserves discussion. Does that mean that other citations cannot be ''added''? Heck no. Please, find citations and statements to add to the article discussing in depth the ad campaign; tearing down what is already in place seems to benefit no one (well, except for someone trying to hamstring the article so that it ends up at AfD, which I am sure isn't the case here), except Gates and Company.
::Expand the article, adding parts that provide more than just the bad news about how Microsoft cocked up a few times, and the balance that some seem to feel is lacking will indeed emerge. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Desperate need for wikignoming ==

The second and third sections of this article have terrible grammar. I recognise there are other disputes about content going on, but it would be nice if someone made the article readable while the content issues are being worked out here on the talk page. I won't be able to work on it for several hours - fingers crossed someone else beats me to it. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've done a bit, but I can't say it will survive the back and forth that is currently diverting the attention of various editors. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protected ==

<s>This article is semi-protected for 72 hours to address the repeated insertion of disputed material by an anonymous IP editor. The anonymous editor is urged strongly to come to this page and discuss the disputed content. Should the content dispute come to an amicable resolution prior to the end of the semi-protection, any administrator may be asked to make an <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> edit or to lift the protection. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
::Reverted to non-protected mode. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to point out that the anon was blocked for 3RR. Yer a lot quicker on the draw, partmer. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T21:13:32Z

76.224.68.237: /* Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign Mac Vs. PC */

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

{{Archive box|box-width=150px
|[[/Archive1|Archive 1]]
}}
== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::As I have said before, I am not immediately opposed to some of the edits (even though, there appears to be a tendency to tout sources supporting MS's marketing while simultaneously downplaying or simply removing any Apple info); I simply think that - because of the scale at which they are being introduced - discussion is helpful. Tossing out twenty-plus edits and expecting individual editors to act on a single edit in the middle of the two dozen edits where the citation was removed, the text rewritten and a completely different citation added seems a significant expenditure of time. Why not make sure the edits will stay by discussing them first? Why does the user have to be warned that they are at the electric fence of 3RR before they even approach the discussion page?
:::Seriously, some of these need discussion ''before'' being added, as per BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign ==

:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for coming to discussion, though you are a little late in doing so. Maybe you could defend your edits that you feel are worth reverting others three times to preserve. Do them point by point, as - personally speaking - am a bit concerned over the removal of any errors of MS's ad campaign as well as any reference to the Apple campaign that this particular ad campaign was supposed to counter (though MS is now spinning it that its part of a larger campaign). - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::It would have been better to have discussed these changes ahead of time, but I actually agree that most of them were helpful - a few were edits that I had planned on making myself (such as removing the "negative reaction" to the commercials bit that was unsourced and contradicted by the Times article). I think folks should stop revert warring over this, and start identifying what if anything needs to be reinserted. All in all, for a fairly minor subject, the article is in OK shape. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I would tend to disagree, as many of the edits seem to downplay that MS made any mistake at all, and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. Point by point approach would seem to be the best way to address these edits, as there is sure to be some dissent for some of them. I don't mind waiting for the anon to be unblocked, so he can contribute to the discussion.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]==

:You may be just a little off there when you say, ''"and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. "''. It is a given, and is discussed at length. Check the Intro, about 50% is just that - and it includes a hypertext link to [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]. In the second section, "Campaign", again nearly 50% of the entire section deals with that, it is both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 4 paragraphs in the section. I think, at half the content (not including the significant and possibly majority share that is the "criticism" section), it is given significant attention.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Desperate need for wikignoming ==

The second and third sections of this article have terrible grammar. I recognise there are other disputes about content going on, but it would be nice if someone made the article readable while the content issues are being worked out here on the talk page. I won't be able to work on it for several hours - fingers crossed someone else beats me to it. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've done a bit, but I can't say it will survive the back and forth that is currently diverting the attention of various editors. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protected ==

<s>This article is semi-protected for 72 hours to address the repeated insertion of disputed material by an anonymous IP editor. The anonymous editor is urged strongly to come to this page and discuss the disputed content. Should the content dispute come to an amicable resolution prior to the end of the semi-protection, any administrator may be asked to make an <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> edit or to lift the protection. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
::Reverted to non-protected mode. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to point out that the anon was blocked for 3RR. Yer a lot quicker on the draw, partmer. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T21:07:11Z

76.224.68.237: /* Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign Mac Vs. PC */

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::As I have said before, I am not immediately opposed to some of the edits (even though, there appears to be a tendency to tout sources supporting MS's marketing while simultaneously downplaying or simply removing any Apple info); I simply think that - because of the scale at which they are being introduced - discussion is helpful. Tossing out twenty-plus edits and expecting individual editors to act on a single edit in the middle of the two dozen edits where the citation was removed, the text rewritten and a completely different citation added seems a significant expenditure of time. Why not make sure the edits will stay by discussing them first? Why does the user have to be warned that they are at the electric fence of 3RR before they even approach the discussion page?
:::Seriously, some of these need discussion ''before'' being added, as per BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign ==

:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for coming to discussion, though you are a little late in doing so. Maybe you could defend your edits that you feel are worth reverting others three times to preserve. Do them point by point, as - personally speaking - am a bit concerned over the removal of any errors of MS's ad campaign as well as any reference to the Apple campaign that this particular ad campaign was supposed to counter (though MS is now spinning it that its part of a larger campaign). - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::It would have been better to have discussed these changes ahead of time, but I actually agree that most of them were helpful - a few were edits that I had planned on making myself (such as removing the "negative reaction" to the commercials bit that was unsourced and contradicted by the Times article). I think folks should stop revert warring over this, and start identifying what if anything needs to be reinserted. All in all, for a fairly minor subject, the article is in OK shape. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I would tend to disagree, as many of the edits seem to downplay that MS made any mistake at all, and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. Point by point approach would seem to be the best way to address these edits, as there is sure to be some dissent for some of them. I don't mind waiting for the anon to be unblocked, so he can contribute to the discussion.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]==

:Your a little off there when you say, ''"and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. "''. It is a given, and is discussed at length. Check the Intro, about 50% is just that - and it includes a hypertext link to [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]. In the second section, "Campaign", again nearly 50% of the entire section deals with that, it is both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 4 paragraphs in the section. I think, at half the content (not including the significant and possibly majority share that is the "criticism" section), it is given significant attention.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Desperate need for wikignoming ==

The second and third sections of this article have terrible grammar. I recognise there are other disputes about content going on, but it would be nice if someone made the article readable while the content issues are being worked out here on the talk page. I won't be able to work on it for several hours - fingers crossed someone else beats me to it. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've done a bit, but I can't say it will survive the back and forth that is currently diverting the attention of various editors. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protected ==

<s>This article is semi-protected for 72 hours to address the repeated insertion of disputed material by an anonymous IP editor. The anonymous editor is urged strongly to come to this page and discuss the disputed content. Should the content dispute come to an amicable resolution prior to the end of the semi-protection, any administrator may be asked to make an <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> edit or to lift the protection. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
::Reverted to non-protected mode. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to point out that the anon was blocked for 3RR. Yer a lot quicker on the draw, partmer. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T21:02:53Z

76.224.68.237: New section: Apple ad Campaign

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::As I have said before, I am not immediately opposed to some of the edits (even though, there appears to be a tendency to tout sources supporting MS's marketing while simultaneously downplaying or simply removing any Apple info); I simply think that - because of the scale at which they are being introduced - discussion is helpful. Tossing out twenty-plus edits and expecting individual editors to act on a single edit in the middle of the two dozen edits where the citation was removed, the text rewritten and a completely different citation added seems a significant expenditure of time. Why not make sure the edits will stay by discussing them first? Why does the user have to be warned that they are at the electric fence of 3RR before they even approach the discussion page?
:::Seriously, some of these need discussion ''before'' being added, as per BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign ==

:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for coming to discussion, though you are a little late in doing so. Maybe you could defend your edits that you feel are worth reverting others three times to preserve. Do them point by point, as - personally speaking - am a bit concerned over the removal of any errors of MS's ad campaign as well as any reference to the Apple campaign that this particular ad campaign was supposed to counter (though MS is now spinning it that its part of a larger campaign). - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::It would have been better to have discussed these changes ahead of time, but I actually agree that most of them were helpful - a few were edits that I had planned on making myself (such as removing the "negative reaction" to the commercials bit that was unsourced and contradicted by the Times article). I think folks should stop revert warring over this, and start identifying what if anything needs to be reinserted. All in all, for a fairly minor subject, the article is in OK shape. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I would tend to disagree, as many of the edits seem to downplay that MS made any mistake at all, and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign, which is pretty much a given. Point by point approach would seem to be the best way to address these edits, as there is sure to be some dissent for some of them. I don't mind waiting for the anon to be unblocked, so he can contribute to the discussion.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Campaign as response to Apple Ad Campaign [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]==

:Your a little off there when you say, ''"and removes any of the comparison with the Apple ad campaign,"''. Check the Intro, about 50% is just that - and it includes a hypertext link to [[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]. In the second section, "Campaign", again nearly 50% of the entire section deals with that, it is both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the 4 paragraphs in the section. I think, at half the content (not including the significant and possibly majority share that is the "criticism" section), it is given significant attention.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Desperate need for wikignoming ==

The second and third sections of this article have terrible grammar. I recognise there are other disputes about content going on, but it would be nice if someone made the article readable while the content issues are being worked out here on the talk page. I won't be able to work on it for several hours - fingers crossed someone else beats me to it. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:I've done a bit, but I can't say it will survive the back and forth that is currently diverting the attention of various editors. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Semi-protected ==

<s>This article is semi-protected for 72 hours to address the repeated insertion of disputed material by an anonymous IP editor. The anonymous editor is urged strongly to come to this page and discuss the disputed content. Should the content dispute come to an amicable resolution prior to the end of the semi-protection, any administrator may be asked to make an <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> edit or to lift the protection. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</s>
::Reverted to non-protected mode. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was going to point out that the anon was blocked for 3RR. Yer a lot quicker on the draw, partmer. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.224.68.237

2008-10-07T19:14:26Z

76.224.68.237:

==Re: I'm a PC==
It might serve your edits better to discuss them instead of altering vast tracts of the article to suit your whims. I am going to revert your additions. Now, in accordance with [[WP:BRD]], your next step is to head on over to the article discussion page and defend your edits ''and seek a consensus'' before adding them in. Thank you for your cooperation - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== October 2008 ==

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_PC?diff=243649794 recent edit] you made to [[:I'm a PC]] has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. You may also wish to read the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you.  [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This is growing tedious. When you are asked to discuss your edits, you need to take the time to go to discussion and ''discuss your edits''. Your behavior, while seemingly good-intentioned, is becoming disruptive. Please see [[WP:BRD]] and learn that after your '''B'''old edits are '''R'''everted, your only option is to '''D'''iscuss and defend them in article discussion. You are not going to be able to edit-war over our hearts and minds,a nd will likely end up blocked for failing to do. You are presenting interesting ideas. Please take the time to gain a consensus for them in article discussion, and you may very well be pleased with the results. the article will almost certainly be stronger for having discussed them and arriving at a consensus for their inclusion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo. Is this conclusive proof? I think not. [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::No one is arguing that the edits aren't good on their face, Bjelleklang; only that because they appear to be ''very'' anti-Mac and ''very'' pro-PC, they should be discussed. We use the BRD model to find a consensus through discussion. Whether the user is new or not, they know that discussion and consensus are the only way those edits are going to survive. The anon's successive reverts are going to land him/her in hot water, and being blocked doesn't serve the user, the article or the project. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::ps - I didn't address your points here, because such should be discussed in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR warning ==

You are at your [[WP:3RR|third revert]] for the day. Any subsequent reverts to the article will result in you being reported and blocked for violation of 3RR.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 1st revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 2nd revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 3rd revert]
- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth revert after being warned constitutes a violation of 3RR. As per protocol, I have filed a report regarding your violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#76.224.68.237_reported_by_Arcayne_.28Result:_.29 here]. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]{{#if:| at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please be more careful to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{#if:|[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div>[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.}}Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.

User talk:76.224.68.237

2008-10-07T19:13:52Z

76.224.68.237:

==Re: I'm a PC==
It might serve your edits better to discuss them instead of altering vast tracts of the article to suit your whims. I am going to revert your additions. Now, in accordance with [[WP:BRD]], your next step is to head on over to the article discussion page and defend your edits ''and seek a consensus'' before adding them in. Thank you for your cooperation - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== October 2008 ==

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_PC?diff=243649794 recent edit] you made to [[:I'm a PC]] has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. You may also wish to read the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you.  [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This is growing tedious. When you are asked to discuss your edits, you need to take the time to go to discussion and ''discuss your edits''. Your behavior, while seemingly good-intentioned, is becoming disruptive. Please see [[WP:BRD]] and learn that after your '''B'''old edits are '''R'''everted, your only option is to '''D'''iscuss and defend them in article discussion. You are not going to be able to edit-war over our hearts and minds,a nd will likely end up blocked for failing to do. You are presenting interesting ideas. Please take the time to gain a consensus for them in article discussion, and you may very well be pleased with the results. the article will almost certainly be stronger for having discussed them and arriving at a consensus for their inclusion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo. Is this conclusive proof? I think not. [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::No one is arguing that the edits aren't good on their face, Bjelleklang; only that because they appear to be ''very'' anti-Mac and ''very'' pro-PC, they should be discussed. We use the BRD model to find a consensus through discussion. Whether the user is new or not, they know that discussion and consensus are the only way those edits are going to survive. The anon's successive reverts are going to land him/her in hot water, and being blocked doesn't serve the user, the article or the project. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::ps - I didn't address your points here, because such should be discussed in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR warning ==

You are at your [[WP:3RR|third revert]] for the day. Any subsequent reverts to the article will result in you being reported and blocked for violation of 3RR.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 1st revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 2nd revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 3rd revert]
- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth revert after being warned constitutes a violation of 3RR. As per protocol, I have filed a report regarding your violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#76.224.68.237_reported_by_Arcayne_.28Result:_.29 here]. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]{{#if:| at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please be more careful to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{#if:|[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div>[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.}}Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks 1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.

User talk:76.224.68.237

2008-10-07T19:12:47Z

76.224.68.237:

==Re: I'm a PC==
It might serve your edits better to discuss them instead of altering vast tracts of the article to suit your whims. I am going to revert your additions. Now, in accordance with [[WP:BRD]], your next step is to head on over to the article discussion page and defend your edits ''and seek a consensus'' before adding them in. Thank you for your cooperation - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== October 2008 ==

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_PC?diff=243649794 recent edit] you made to [[:I'm a PC]] has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. You may also wish to read the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you.  [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This is growing tedious. When you are asked to discuss your edits, you need to take the time to go to discussion and ''discuss your edits''. Your behavior, while seemingly good-intentioned, is becoming disruptive. Please see [[WP:BRD]] and learn that after your '''B'''old edits are '''R'''everted, your only option is to '''D'''iscuss and defend them in article discussion. You are not going to be able to edit-war over our hearts and minds,a nd will likely end up blocked for failing to do. You are presenting interesting ideas. Please take the time to gain a consensus for them in article discussion, and you may very well be pleased with the results. the article will almost certainly be stronger for having discussed them and arriving at a consensus for their inclusion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo. Is this conclusive proof? I think not. [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::No one is arguing that the edits aren't good on their face, Bjelleklang; only that because they appear to be ''very'' anti-Mac and ''very'' pro-PC, they should be discussed. We use the BRD model to find a consensus through discussion. Whether the user is new or not, they know that discussion and consensus are the only way those edits are going to survive. The anon's successive reverts are going to land him/her in hot water, and being blocked doesn't serve the user, the article or the project. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::ps - I didn't address your points here, because such should be discussed in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR warning ==

You are at your [[WP:3RR|third revert]] for the day. Any subsequent reverts to the article will result in you being reported and blocked for violation of 3RR.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 1st revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 2nd revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 3rd revert]
- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth revert after being warned constitutes a violation of 3RR. As per protocol, I have filed a report regarding your violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#76.224.68.237_reported_by_Arcayne_.28Result:_.29 here]. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]{{#if:| at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please be more careful to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{#if:|[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div>[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.}}Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.

User talk:76.224.68.237

2008-10-07T19:11:16Z

76.224.68.237:

==Re: I'm a PC==
It might serve your edits better to discuss them instead of altering vast tracts of the article to suit your whims. I am going to revert your additions. Now, in accordance with [[WP:BRD]], your next step is to head on over to the article discussion page and defend your edits ''and seek a consensus'' before adding them in. Thank you for your cooperation - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== October 2008 ==

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_PC?diff=243649794 recent edit] you made to [[:I'm a PC]] has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. You may also wish to read the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you.  [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This is growing tedious. When you are asked to discuss your edits, you need to take the time to go to discussion and ''discuss your edits''. Your behavior, while seemingly good-intentioned, is becoming disruptive. Please see [[WP:BRD]] and learn that after your '''B'''old edits are '''R'''everted, your only option is to '''D'''iscuss and defend them in article discussion. You are not going to be able to edit-war over our hearts and minds,a nd will likely end up blocked for failing to do. You are presenting interesting ideas. Please take the time to gain a consensus for them in article discussion, and you may very well be pleased with the results. the article will almost certainly be stronger for having discussed them and arriving at a consensus for their inclusion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo. Is this conclusive proof? I think not. [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::No one is arguing that the edits aren't good on their face, Bjelleklang; only that because they appear to be ''very'' anti-Mac and ''very'' pro-PC, they should be discussed. We use the BRD model to find a consensus through discussion. Whether the user is new or not, they know that discussion and consensus are the only way those edits are going to survive. The anon's successive reverts are going to land him/her in hot water, and being blocked doesn't serve the user, the article or the project. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::ps - I didn't address your points here, because such should be discussed in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR warning ==

You are at your [[WP:3RR|third revert]] for the day. Any subsequent reverts to the article will result in you being reported and blocked for violation of 3RR.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 1st revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 2nd revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 3rd revert]
- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth revert after being warned constitutes a violation of 3RR. As per protocol, I have filed a report regarding your violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#76.224.68.237_reported_by_Arcayne_.28Result:_.29 here]. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]{{#if:| at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please be more careful to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{#if:|[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div>[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|''Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it. ''}}Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it.

User talk:76.224.68.237

2008-10-07T19:09:46Z

76.224.68.237: /* 3RR warning */

==Re: I'm a PC==
It might serve your edits better to discuss them instead of altering vast tracts of the article to suit your whims. I am going to revert your additions. Now, in accordance with [[WP:BRD]], your next step is to head on over to the article discussion page and defend your edits ''and seek a consensus'' before adding them in. Thank you for your cooperation - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== October 2008 ==

[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_PC?diff=243649794 recent edit] you made to [[:I'm a PC]] has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. You may also wish to read the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you.  [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 13:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This is growing tedious. When you are asked to discuss your edits, you need to take the time to go to discussion and ''discuss your edits''. Your behavior, while seemingly good-intentioned, is becoming disruptive. Please see [[WP:BRD]] and learn that after your '''B'''old edits are '''R'''everted, your only option is to '''D'''iscuss and defend them in article discussion. You are not going to be able to edit-war over our hearts and minds,a nd will likely end up blocked for failing to do. You are presenting interesting ideas. Please take the time to gain a consensus for them in article discussion, and you may very well be pleased with the results. the article will almost certainly be stronger for having discussed them and arriving at a consensus for their inclusion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo. Is this conclusive proof? I think not. [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::No one is arguing that the edits aren't good on their face, Bjelleklang; only that because they appear to be ''very'' anti-Mac and ''very'' pro-PC, they should be discussed. We use the BRD model to find a consensus through discussion. Whether the user is new or not, they know that discussion and consensus are the only way those edits are going to survive. The anon's successive reverts are going to land him/her in hot water, and being blocked doesn't serve the user, the article or the project. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::ps - I didn't address your points here, because such should be discussed in the article, so as to avoid redundancy. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR warning ==

You are at your [[WP:3RR|third revert]] for the day. Any subsequent reverts to the article will result in you being reported and blocked for violation of 3RR.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 1st revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 2nd revert]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 3rd revert]
- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth revert after being warned constitutes a violation of 3RR. As per protocol, I have filed a report regarding your violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#76.224.68.237_reported_by_Arcayne_.28Result:_.29 here]. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]{{#if:| at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please be more careful to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{#if:|[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div>[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|''Request to unblock as per 3RR noticeboard and blocking Admins remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=243711802]. I'd be happy to discuss the article in the talk page and will be more careful with supporting my edits, it was not my intention to edit war. It's a good article, I think the consensus can be met to grow it. ''}}

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T18:09:23Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */ m

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: ''"appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.".'' I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, ''"You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."''
::::It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243227191] ''"Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."''[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: (ec x3) It ''is'' a decent article, anon. Your additions would make it better, were you to follow the same rules and requests in offering them that the rest of us do - even me. The report is about you, not my past action, which you may note didn't involve violating 3RR, but did involve a lot of discussion in which all parties found consensus. The difference is, you chose not to do that, even after being warned of the consequences. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Focus please; if Johnny jumps off the cliff, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. This is your vio, not mine. In point of fact, i learned my lesson without violating 3RR. You chose not to. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You learned your lesson? Here's still another editor from just last night,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243428044] ''"Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. ... the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome."''. '''You reverted me ''Thirty'' times in just this one day.''' And not once have you offered even a hint of substance as to why even one of the edits was wrong. All you've done is continue to claim ownership and revert back to ''your personal'' version. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 

== [[User:Scjessey]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243412009]

* Diff of 3RR Warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=243700820&oldid=243484012]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243417904 12:56, 6 October 2008]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243479580&oldid=243479265 18:16, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243490502&oldid=243490091 19:11, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243508442&oldid=243504751 20:40, 6 October 2008]
* 5th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243557221&oldid=243555976 00:46, 7 October 2008]
* 6th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243652310&oldid=243652107 13:49, 7 October 2008] granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

There was also another 3RR on the 5th:
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243176223 13:33, 5 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243187740 14:45, 5 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243208381 16:41, 5 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243265136 21:05, 5 October 2008]

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours and 10 reverts in 36 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|Obama Article Probation]]. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. If it was to stop the anon and SPA vandals, he could have just as easily askd for SP on the page. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T18:07:54Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */ response

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: ''"appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.".'' I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, ''"You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."''
::::It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243227191] ''"Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."''[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: (ec x3) It ''is'' a decent article, anon. Your additions would make it better, were you to follow the same rules and requests in offering them that the rest of us do - even me. The report is about you, not my past action, which you may note didn't involve violating 3RR, but did involve a lot of discussion in which all parties found consensus. The difference is, you chose not to do that, even after being warned of the consequences. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Focus please; if Johnny jumps off the cliff, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. This is your vio, not mine. In point of fact, i learned my lesson without violating 3RR. You chose not to. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You learned your lesson? Here's still another editor from just last night,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243428044] ''"Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. ... the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome."''. '''You reverted me ''Thirty'' times in just this one day.''' And not once have you offered even a hint of substance as to why even one of the edits was wrong. All you've done is continue to claim ownership and revert back to ''your'' version.

== [[User:Scjessey]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243412009]

* Diff of 3RR Warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=243700820&oldid=243484012]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243417904 12:56, 6 October 2008]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243479580&oldid=243479265 18:16, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243490502&oldid=243490091 19:11, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243508442&oldid=243504751 20:40, 6 October 2008]
* 5th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243557221&oldid=243555976 00:46, 7 October 2008]
* 6th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243652310&oldid=243652107 13:49, 7 October 2008] granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

There was also another 3RR on the 5th:
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243176223 13:33, 5 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243187740 14:45, 5 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243208381 16:41, 5 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243265136 21:05, 5 October 2008]

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours and 10 reverts in 36 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|Obama Article Probation]]. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. If it was to stop the anon and SPA vandals, he could have just as easily askd for SP on the page. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T18:00:35Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */ italicized third party quotes

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: ''"appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.".'' I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, ''"You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."''
::::It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243227191] ''"Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."''[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: (ec x3) It ''is'' a decent article, anon. Your additions would make it better, were you to follow the same rules and requests in offering them that the rest of us do - even me. The report is about you, not my past action, which you may note didn't involve violating 3RR, but did involve a lot of discussion in which all parties found consensus. The difference is, you chose not to do that, even after being warned of the consequences. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Focus please; if Johnny jumps off the cliff, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. This is your vio, not mine. In point of fact, i learned my lesson without violating 3RR. You chose not to. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Scjessey]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243412009]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243417904 12:56, 6 October 2008]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243479580&oldid=243479265 18:16, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243490502&oldid=243490091 19:11, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243508442&oldid=243504751 20:40, 6 October 2008]
* 5th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243557221&oldid=243555976 00:46, 7 October 2008]
* 6th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243652310&oldid=243652107 13:49, 7 October 2008] granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

There was also another 3RR on the 5th:
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243176223 13:33, 5 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243187740 14:45, 5 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243208381 16:41, 5 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243265136 21:05, 5 October 2008]

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours and 10 reverts in 36 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|Obama Article Probation]]. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T17:59:06Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */restored my comment again

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, "You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."
::::It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243227191] "Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: (ec x3) It ''is'' a decent article, anon. Your additions would make it better, were you to follow the same rules and requests in offering them that the rest of us do - even me. The report is about you, not my past action, which you may note didn't involve violating 3RR, but did involve a lot of discussion in which all parties found consensus. The difference is, you chose not to do that, even after being warned of the consequences. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Focus please; if Johnny jumps off the cliff, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. This is your vio, not mine. In point of fact, i learned my lesson without violating 3RR. You chose not to. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Scjessey]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243412009]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243417904 12:56, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243479580&oldid=243479265 18:16, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243490502&oldid=243490091 19:11, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243508442&oldid=243504751 20:40, 6 October 2008]
* 5th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243557221&oldid=243555976 00:46, 7 October 2008]
* 6th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243652310&oldid=243652107 13:49, 7 October 2008] granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|Obama Article Probation]]. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T17:53:05Z

76.224.68.237: Undid revision 243698153 by Arcayne (talk)Please do not remove my comments and then replace them with your own.

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, "You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."
::::It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243227191] "Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Scjessey]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243412009]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243417904 12:56, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243479580&oldid=243479265 18:16, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243490502&oldid=243490091 19:11, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243508442&oldid=243504751 20:40, 6 October 2008]
* 5th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243557221&oldid=243555976 00:46, 7 October 2008]
* 6th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243652310&oldid=243652107 13:49, 7 October 2008] granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|Obama Article Probation]]. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T17:48:13Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */ More evidence of Arcaynes edit warring with multiple editors in this same article

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, "You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."
::::It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=prev&oldid=243227191] "Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Scjessey]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243412009]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=243417904 12:56, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243479580&oldid=243479265 18:16, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243490502&oldid=243490091 19:11, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243508442&oldid=243504751 20:40, 6 October 2008]
* 5th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243557221&oldid=243555976 00:46, 7 October 2008]
* 6th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&diff=243652310&oldid=243652107 13:49, 7 October 2008] granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|Obama Article Probation]]. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T17:40:26Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */ respond with evidence of still more editors complaining about Arcaynes "Ownership" issues

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

:''As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berdov&diff=prev&oldid=243666408] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'''

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=243657141 9:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
::Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
::Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers ''all'' edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=243385126] yesterday, "You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."
It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Indubitably

2008-10-07T17:20:36Z

76.224.68.237: /* HI! */ soeey about the bother

{{administrator}}
{{User:Cream/scrolling}}
[[Category:Rouge admins]]
<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:34px; top:18px;" class="metadata">This page looks best in [[Mozilla Firefox]].</div>

{{User:Jennavecia/Notice}}

{| style="width: 100%; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 5px double DarkViolet; padding: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;"
| colspan=2 style="vertical-align:top" |<center>
{| cellpadding="5" style="border-collapse:collapse; background-color:transparent; border-style:none; margin: 10px 20px;"
| width="20" valign=top | [[Image:Cquote1.png|20px]]
| align="center" |Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.
| width="20" valign=bottom | [[Image:Cquote2.png|20px]]
|-
| colspan="3" | <div style="text-align: center;">- [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]]</s[an></div>
|} {{User:Jennavecia/header}}
{{admin|Jennavecia}}

----
 
<big><nowiki>*READ THIS FIRST OR YOUR MESSAGE MAY BE IGNORED*</nowiki></big> Probably not, but read it anyway.</center>

*'''If you leave a message here, I'll reply here.''' If I've left you a message, you can reply there or here. If you chose to reply here, I will respond here.
*'''If there is a conversation taking place somewhere, keep it there.''' It doesn't need to also take place on my talk page. Such discussions will be removed.
*As much as I like to smile, please '''do not post generic smile or wikilove templates here'''. If you want to personalize them, by all means, I appreciate those. Otherwise, give them to someone else.
*'''If you're an admin wondering why I report to AIV''', I use Huggle and the block feature is currently broken. Expect several Huggle-using admins to be doing this until it is fixed. :)
*'''If you're an admin wanting to reverse an admin action of mine''', I'm typically available on IRC if I'm online. If I'm not responsive to my talk page or on IRC, and there is a consensus among admins that my action should be overturned, then do so without my input.
 
----
{|style="border:0px solid #e6e1ff; background-color:transparent;" align=center
|__TOC__
|{{archive box|image=[[Image:Exquisite-folder font.png|80px]]|box-width=25em|'''2007''': [[/Archive 1|[Mar] [Apr]]] [[/Archive 2|[May]]] [[/Archive 3|[Jun]]] [[/Archive 4|[Jul]]] [[/Archive 5|[Jul 2]]] [[/Archive 6|[Aug]]] [[/Archive 7|[Aug 2]]] [[/Archive 8|[Sep]]] [[/Archive 9|[Sep 2]]] [[/Archive 10|[Oct]]] [[/Archive 11|[Oct 2]]] [[/Archive 12|[Nov]]] [[/Archive 13|[My RfA]]] [[/Archive 14|[Nov 2]]] [[/Archive 15|[Dec]]] [[/Archive 16|[Dec 2]]] 
'''2008''': [[/Archive 17|[Jan]]] [[/Archive 18|[Jan 2]]] [[/Archive 19|[Jan 3]]] [[/Archive 20|[Feb]]] [[/Archive 21|[Feb 2]]] [[/Archive 22|[Mar]]] [[/Archive 23|[Mar 2]]] [[/Archive 24|[Apr]]] [[/Archive 25|[Apr 2]]] [[/Archive 26|[May]]] [[/Archive 27|[May 2]]] [[/Archive 28|[Jun]]] [[/Archive 29|[Jun 2]]] [[/Archive 30|[Jun 3]]] [[/Archive 31|[Jul]]] [[/Archive 32|[Jul 2]]] [[/Archive 33|[Aug]]] [[/Archive 34|[Aug 2]]] [[/Archive 35|[Sep]]] [[/Archive 36|[Sep 2]]] [[/Archive 37|[Oct]]]}}
|}


==The Matrix is real==
Hi Jennavecia

Sorry, but you shouldn't just revert, I created this change and monitored it for an hour, but the thing it is about, sorry for the matrix-like wording: real.

You can't just remove it. A philosophical issue like reality and computer virtual reality IS A DEEPLY SERIOUS WARNING.

This box-content is the truth. Just check out the other story at sonic weaponry or check the dates of the wiki post and the february school shootings. I can also send you to ibm or virgin, but just bugger of, this revert is just not going to happen (it is too serious). Please check things out more seriously next time, this is the real thing! - Lord Santos

:Right. Okay. Well, I'll keep that in mind. But, contrary to what you've stated above, I can just revert it, and I did. Your addition had three main issues as far as Wikipedia goes. 1/ It's what we refer to as [[WP:OR|original research]], 2/ The article is on the movie and what you've added has absolutely nothing to do with it, and 3/ You placed it in the infobox, which isn't coded for it, so it didn't show up in the article page anyway. So, basically, it's going to continue to be removed, and if you continue to put it back, you'll lose your editing privileges. So please refrain from adding original research and stick to [[WP:RS|sourced]] information. Thanks, [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

==I told you I was going to do it...==
{| align=center style="{{Round corners}}; font-family:Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; border: 3px solid #3AAB67; padding: 6px; background: #B8F9CF;"
|[[Image:pi Pie.jpg|100px|left]]
|'''''[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]][[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]''''' has given you a [[pie]]! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! 

Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{tls|Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


|}
</div>
Not the picture I had wanted to use, but it still works. Enjoy! :) '''''[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]][[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]''''' 23:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Omai Lara, who ate all the pies?? O_O ——[[User:Possum|Possum]] ([[User talk:Possum|talk]]) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Burrrp! And no [[Haggis]]? ...''[[User:Dave1185|Dave1185]] ([[User talk:Dave1185|talk]]) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)''

:Hahaha, that's great, Gazimoff. I like your pi pie better, but this pi pie will do! XD [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm just going to watch and see if it catches on :) '''''[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]][[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]''''' 00:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I think it's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iridescent#It.27s_a_pi_pie catching on]. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== comment ==

Sorry J...U were right, i did not read te page good...Sorry for calling you a B, lol...By the way if you can put up a Pic of Carol that would be nice. Have a good night! Oh and sorry for writing on here, but i dont know how else to write to you and i dont want to write on Carol's page again... {{unsigned|70.91.112.5}}

I moved this comment from your user page. Cheers! [[User:Burner0718|'''Burner0718''']] [[User talk:Burner0718|''Jibba Jabba!'']] 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:A B? Did someone call ''me'' a bitch?! Surely not! >_> [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hard to believe that anyone would waste their time and effort to state the bleedin' obvious, isn't it? :lol: --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hahaha, so true! So true! [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 12:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Whazzup ==

You know, you're an admin. You can just go ahead and block all the vandals. Thought I'd remind you. BTW, what's been up? I know, I'm a terrible friend. But how you been? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|talk]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|contribs]] 12:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Wait.... I'm an admin!?! :O zOMG! \o/ Woooo! Go me. Oh wait, I knew that. ;)
:I'm using Huggle, and the block function is borked, so we just auto-report everything. I'm good by the way. I got promoted! It's good times. How are you and yours? [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Promoted? Does that mean you're like head waitress? Or even better than that? We're awesome. We're expecting another son in January, and Andrew has become more time-consuming, which is why I'm not as active as I used to be. You could drop me a line on Facebook sometime too... I check that from time to time... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|talk]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|contribs]] 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I rarely use FB, but I'll try... for you! Uhm... I'm a crew leader and I'm training to be an assistant manager. :D Hey... jump on Yahoo or IRC. There's BRC news that's neither funny or bathrobe related, but important. Oh, and CONGRATS! [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 12:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was going to ask the same thing, but it appears that Jayron beat me to it. Not that I mind doing the dirty work! Congrats on the AM position! Just stay away from anything that is a salary position!! --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks! :) [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 14:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thank you for removing that nonsense from my talk page so quickly. It is much appreciated! [[User:Alanraywiki|Alanraywiki]] ([[User talk:Alanraywiki|talk]]) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:No problem. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==HI!==

Sorry if my edit summary in [[I'm a PC]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_PC?diff=243649794]was less than clear. I removed the line about Seinfeld because although he did appear in the Microsoft ads just before this series, he does not have any involvement and does not appear in these particular ads at all. Sorry if I appeared to revert brusquely, I didn't mean too and was just focused.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, no problem. Thanks for the note. [[User:Jennavecia|Jennavecia]][[User talk:Jennavecia| (Talk)]] 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I have appraised the user of his 3rd revert for the day, and that any subsequent reverts will result in a 3RR complaint being filed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Jennavecia, sorry but it looks like your revert and my revert of each other is being used by Arcayne as a basis to remove me. I hope I honestly characterized the interaction here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#76.224.68.237_reported_by_Arcayne_.28Result:_.29] Sorry for the bother, but as he used your name, and I needed to defend I thought you should know your stuff was being used.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2008-10-07T17:17:24Z

76.224.68.237: /* 76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: ) */ defending my contributions

<noinclude>{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(72h)
|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}
</noinclude>
__TOC__

=Violations=
:Please place [[#Example|new reports]] {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/archivesearch.php?search=&where=enpedia_3rr search] the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives|archives]] for it.



== [[User:24.180.21.121]] reported by [[User:Movingboxes]] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by [[User:Shell Kinney]]) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.

{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}

Time reported: 2:48 AM

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&oldid=233464306] 





*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492327&oldid=233492115]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233492598&oldid=233492540]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493023&oldid=233492710]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.180.21.121&diff=233493070&oldid=233460167]

== [[User:Jlone78|Jlone78]] and [[User:220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] reported by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Hibari Misora}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jlone78}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}


* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=239562964&oldid=236691028 2008-09-19T13:50:09]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242591406&oldid=242542579 2008-10-02T21:27:07] by 220.253.144.103
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242654290&oldid=242653706 2008-10-03T02:35:40] by Jlone78
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242656725&oldid=242656123 2008-10-03T02:48:45] by Jlone78
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242658554&oldid=242657976 2008-10-03T02:59:31] by Jlone78
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242662955&oldid=242661832 2008-10-03T03:24:37] by Jlone78
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242840295&oldid=242673272 2008-10-03T22:00:00] by 220.253.23.184
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242854539&oldid=242851842 2008-10-03T23:15:46] by 220.253.23.184

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlone78&diff=prev&oldid=242663585 2008-10-03T03:28:39][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.253.23.184&diff=prev&oldid=242845640 2008-10-03T22:26:12]

*By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, {{user|Jlone78}} is obviously same as {{User|220.253.34.72}}, {{User|220.253.144.103}}, {{User|220.253.23.184}}, all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=241830335&oldid=239562964] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242653706&oldid=242593976]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241849198] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241855844] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caspian_blue&diff=prev&oldid=241858361]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=241879265]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Koga] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242653706] with many minor edits for corrections such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242658679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242656927]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=242336276&oldid=242319342] and the biography board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242676118] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. [[Special:Contributions/220.253.23.184|220.253.23.184]] ([[User talk:220.253.23.184|talk]]) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&diff=242850001&oldid=242848317] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242674913]--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment from a partly involved administrator''' I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hibari_Misora&action=history] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242667292],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=prev&oldid=242849046][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that [[WP:BLP]] exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of ''living people'' (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being [[WP:R|reliable]] includes newspapers, and [[WP:V|verifiable]], doesn't mean that one ''has'' to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242664193] There are also problems understanding that we work by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], that we need to discuss and [[WP:AGF| assume good faith about other editors]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=242840173], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibari_Misora&diff=242849382&oldid=242663306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=242853109] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Edit warring now seems to have stopped. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Segregator236|Segregator236]] , reported by [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] (Result:Discussing with user) ==

* Page: {{article|C-802}}
* User: {{userlinks|Segregator236}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242858553&oldid=242803052]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239484296&oldid=239405723]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=239956156&oldid=239929101]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242656310&oldid=241381248]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C-802&diff=242668028&oldid=242659048]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASegregator236&diff=242880527&oldid=242660879]

Engaged in a long term revert war on [[C-802]] from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. [[User:ThePointblank|ThePointblank]] ([[User talk:ThePointblank|talk]]) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Orthopraxia|Orthopraxia]] reported by [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] (Result:No action taken, discussing with users) ==

* Page: [[MISR (firearm)|MISR]]
* User: [[User:Orthopraxia]]



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&oldid=238802514]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242834250&oldid=242820360]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242814447&oldid=242811857]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242811765&oldid=242796055]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MISR_(firearm)&diff=242779702&oldid=242605229]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthopraxia&diff=242820728&oldid=242595590]

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from [[User:Nukes4Tots]]. [[User:Koalorka|Koalorka]] ([[User talk:Koalorka|talk]]) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on [[User talk:Koalorka]]. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:125.60.235.231|125.60.235.231]] reported by [[User:PikDig|PikDig]] (Result: Stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Mactan-Cebu International Airport}}
* User: {{userlinks|125.60.235.231}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242674809]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242756269]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242759934]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242761269]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&oldid=242763350]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A125.60.235.231&diff=242773441&oldid=242772727]


The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [http://www.nnairport.com/], [http://www.shenzhenair.com/], and [http://www.mactan-cebuairport.com.ph/] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://cebupacificair.com/dwnload/flight_skeds/intl_direct_flights_091808.pdf]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [http://asianspirit.com/domestic_flights.htm]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the [[NPA|no personal attacks rule]].

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

*1st: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242759934&oldid=242757522] (read his edit summary)
*2nd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mactan-Cebu_International_Airport&diff=242761269&oldid=242760450] (read his edit summary)
*3rd: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APikDig&diff=242765228&oldid=232314594]

Thank you. [[User:PikDig|pikdig]] ([[User talk:PikDig|talk]]) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Don't know how this got missed, but it's {{AN3|s}} now. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:ItsLassieTime]] reported by [[User:Collectonian]] (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties) ==

* Page: {{article|Timmy Martin (television character)}}
* User: {{userlinks|ItsLassieTime|ItsLassieTime}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=241714406&oldid=241713946 link]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242877126&oldid=242529802 link]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242897507&oldid=242895232 link]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242900147&oldid=242897876 link]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571 link]
* 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&curid=14224324&diff=242904412&oldid=242903927 link]


* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timmy_Martin_(television_character)&diff=242902209&oldid=242900571]


Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against [[WP:NONFREE]] and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. [[User:Master of Puppets|'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|Call me MoP! :)]] 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Thulasi12345]] reported by [[User:Bignole]] (Result:User warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Spider-Man 4}}
* User: {{userlinks|Thulasi12345|Thulasi12345}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[

#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242965439&oldid=242964863 Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242968474&oldid=242967942 Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008]
##First warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969124&oldid=242962436 Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969377&oldid=242968859 Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008]
##Second warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thulasi12345&diff=242969811&oldid=242969124 Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008]
#Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242969884&oldid=242969596 Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008]

*{{AN3|w}} about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Verbal]] reported by [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] (Result: No violation) ==

* Page: {{article|Race and crime}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verbal}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&oldid=242895555]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242932829&oldid=242932521]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242966996&oldid=242955019]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_crime&diff=242968181&oldid=242968107]
* 4th revert: [link]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&diff=242971340&oldid=242926929]



'''Reply''' The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. [[User:Verbal|'''Verbal''']] [[User talk:Verbal#top|chat]] 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nv}} [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. [[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] (Result: Both blocked, 24h) ==

* Page: {{article|Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland}}
* User: {{userlinks|Garda40}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242959123&oldid=238401078]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242972079&oldid=242959123]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242989635&oldid=242973555]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242991695&oldid=242990211]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=242994511&oldid=242993594]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garda40&diff=prev&oldid=242996046]

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACroatiaShoes&diff=242992239&oldid=242964503 here] and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''The user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case [[Republic of Ireland]] is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See [[Names of the Irish state]]). as a ref '' despite being told [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_terrestrial_television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=242973555 here] why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of [[wikipere]] who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to [[WP:AGF]] and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::(after edit conflict) [[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] also admits to gaming the system ''I make sure to not brake 3RR.'' and this from a new account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CroatiaShoes&curid=19606814&diff=242997821&oldid=242997480 here]

:Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . [[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply'''::''accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic''. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .[[User:Garda40|Garda40]] ([[User talk:Garda40|talk]]) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.[[User:CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb}} for 24 hours. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PeeJay2K3]] reported by [[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] (Result: Page protected) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|4 Associations Tournament}}. {{3RRV|PeeJay2K3}}: Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242961885 13:41, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242956373 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) inappropriate")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=242964948 14:01, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 242963434 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) how is it misleading?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243053057 22:55, 4 October 2008] (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243052022 by [[Special:Contributions/CroatiaShoes|CroatiaShoes]] ([[User talk:CroatiaShoes|talk]]) now you're just being [[WP:POINT]]y")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4%20Associations%20Tournament&diff=prev&oldid=243064613 00:04, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")

* Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeeJay2K3&diff=243065161&oldid=242960785 here]

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record.
—[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a [[WP:POINT]]y edit). – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and '''stopped'''. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.[[User:CroatiaShoes|'''''CroatiaShoes''''']] 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

* The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via [[WP:3O]] pr [[WP:RFC]] if you need it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]] 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user [[User:Wikipéire]], why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! [[User:Snappy56|Snappy56]] ([[User talk:Snappy56|talk]]) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Cory Malik|Cory Malik]] reported by [[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cory Malik}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&oldid=242459581]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242616888&oldid=242461677]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242870818&oldid=242750704]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242886959&oldid=242871228]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243001764&oldid=242886959]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=243088339]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092853&oldid=243092226]


I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242461677&oldid=242459581] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=242934697&oldid=242919903]. I even [[Talk:List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes#88 episodes or not?|discussed]] this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACory_Malik&diff=243092226&oldid=242896885] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243092822&oldid=242459581] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--[[User:Cory Malik|Jay M. Baxter-Payne]] ([[User talk:Cory Malik|talk]]) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::"''I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits''" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243269937&oldid=243140844], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_%26_Cody_episodes&diff=243145103&oldid=243135374] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess nobody wants to touch this. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:189.104.65.1|189.104.65.1]] reported by [[User:Husond|Husond]] (Result: Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Galicia (Spain)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.104.65.1}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&oldid=242971578 14:59, October 4, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=242984669&oldid=242971578 16:28, October 4, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243007800&oldid=242985862 18:52, October 4, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243033350&oldid=243020359 21:09, October 4, 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=243105604&oldid=243068192 04:47, October 5, 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:189.104.65.1&oldid=243068322 00:27, October 5, 2008]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. [[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|ö]][[User talk:Husond|nd]] 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rightandright]] reported by [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) (Result: No Action) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|Rightandright}}: Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243143106 09:58, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243152141 11:10, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243185143 14:30, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United%20Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=243187196 14:42, 5 October 2008] (edit summary: "minor")

—[[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|nve}} The first edit is not a revert.--[[User:KojiDude#(top)|Koji]][[User talk:KojiDude#(top)|Dude]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|(C)]] 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Emptv|Emptv]] reported by [[User:ESanchez013|ESanchez013]] (Result: No further action) ==

* Page: {{article|Von Marie Donato}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emptv}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005212658&diff=prev 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214019&diff=prev 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214157&diff=prev 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Von_Marie_Donato&timestamp=20081005214439&diff=prev 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emptv&diff=prev&oldid=243274522 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez '''[[User:ESanchez013|Get to know me!]]''' / '''[[User talk:ESanchez013|Talk to me!]]'''←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
*The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User75.181.153.57 |User75.181.153.57 ]] reported by [[User:xyl_54|xyl_54]] (Result: Warned then Blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|Unterseeboot 552}}
* User: {{userlinks|75.181.153.57}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242713547] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242956697] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=242994491] revert by Jackyd101
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243019708] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243389766] revert by xyl_54
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243409688] undone by 75.181.153.57
* 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243413069]revert by xyl_54
* 7th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=243414968] undone by 75.181.153.57




* Diff of 3RR warning: [[User talk:75.181.153.57]]



This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content.
The original version of this account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unterseeboot_552&oldid=62533152 7 July 2006] was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008.
It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:
*[[User: 71.75.217.133|71.75.217.133]] (Sept 06-Jan 07),
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63 ]] (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
*[[User: 75.181.159.63|75.181.159.63]] (Oct 08).
The content added is highly POV, and editorializing. 
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues. 
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

:{{AN3|w}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.181.153.57&diff=prev&oldid=243440748] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|blocked|2=24 hours}} Edit warring continued past warning. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by [[User:CENSEI]] (Result: stale) ==

* Page: {{article|Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=242809451]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242816706&oldid=242811366]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242836760&oldid=242830104]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242839007&oldid=242837613]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=242884495&oldid=242880949]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|declined}} Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at [[WP:ANI]]. — [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]] 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Rezistenta]] reported by [[User:Squash Racket]] (Result: 1 week) ==

* Page: {{article|Csangos}}
* User: {{userlinks|Rezistenta}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243432938 14:14, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243443440&oldid=243432938 15:06, 6 October 2008]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&oldid=243455259 16:03, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243462093&oldid=243455259 16:42, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243465103&oldid=243463604 16:58, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243467979&oldid=243467246 17:13, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rezistenta&diff=243465949&oldid=243465304] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.


I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

''Other Comments''

:: Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?

::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243432310&oldid=243396864 1st]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243445497&oldid=243443440 2nd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243448654&oldid=243447537 3rd]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243463604&oldid=243462093 4th]
::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&diff=243466487&oldid=243465103 5th]

::And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] please and keep it [[WP:CIV|civil]]. Thank you. 
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... [[User:Rezistenta|Rezistenta]] ([[User talk:Rezistenta|talk]]) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I once again ask you to keep it [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] please. There are no "involved parties", ''you call your own edits concensus'' and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
:::Once again: ''if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report''. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::n.b. - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=243489915#.3F]. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pioneer26|Pioneer26]] reported by [[User:Abd|Abd]] (Result: indef) ==

* Page: {{article|Banu Qurayza}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pioneer26}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=238780286]


Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=243422174&oldid=243417540] 13:19, 6 October 2008
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243444924] 16:06, 6 October 2008
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243461969] 17:10, 6 October 2008
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&oldid=243470457] 17:30, 6 October 2008




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APioneer26&diff=243458321&oldid=231214035]


I warned both this editor and [[User:Devotus]] even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. [[user:east718|<big style="color:#900">east718</big>]] // [[user talk:east718#top|talk]] // [[special:emailuser/east718|email]] // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: No action) ==

* Page: {{article|Talk:Barack Obama}}
* User: {{userlinks|Noroton}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243236950 19:06, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243236950 compare]) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243237163 19:07, 5 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243237163 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244] closure of discussion'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243470011 17:24, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243470011 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243415042&oldid=243413626] addition of addendum'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473138 17:40, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473138 compare]) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] closure of discussion'')
#: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243473335 17:41, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243473335 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (''reverts this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243472383] addition of heading'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243477607 18:06, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243477607 compare]) (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 243476839 by [[Special:Contributions/Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]])reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (''undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure'')
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243482200 18:29, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&oldid=243225805&diff=243482200 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per [[WP:TALK]] section headers are supposed to be neutral") (''reverts part of heading added here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243481047]'')

*Editor warned about 3RR here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=243085514&oldid=243085244]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current [[AN/I]] report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] and "disruptive" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack%20Obama&diff=prev&oldid=243476255] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:The talk page is under article probation (see [[Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]]). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
'''No action for now.''' Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at [[Barack Obama]], and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:143.226.27.72]] reported by [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|OPV AIDS hypothesis}}
* User: {{userlinks|143.226.27.72}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&oldid=243340381 Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243363444&oldid=243352826 05:08, 6 October 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243379415&oldid=243367169 07:34, 6 October 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243381465&oldid=243380452 07:59, 6 October 2008]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OPV_AIDS_hypothesis&diff=243495322&oldid=243383796 19:36, 6 October 2008]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.226.27.72&diff=243383802&oldid=243318390]

Also see discussion of the talkpage [[Talk:OPV_AIDS_hypothesis#Recent_additions_to_intro|here]] where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] ([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]]) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:InaMaka]] reported by [[User:Therefore]] (Result: 31 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Lara Logan}}

* User: {{userlinks|InaMaka}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&oldid=242837987]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243456248&oldid=242837987] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243529287&oldid=243511495]

3rd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243541001&oldid=243533206]

4th Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=243543879&oldid=243541508]

[[Page 6]], the gossip column of the [[New York Post]], has reported that [[Lara Logan]] is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/gossip/pagesix/us_eye_on_logans_iraq_loot_131885.htm]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: [[Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]]. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at [[Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy]] and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at [[User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip]]. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I corrected the revert links. [[User:Therefore|∴ Therefore]] [[User talk:Therefore|cogito]]·[[Special:Contributions/Therefore|sum]] 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|31 hours}} [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:PrinceOfCanada]] reported by [[User:G2bambino]] (result: 2 weeks) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:British Royal Family}}
* User: {{userlinks|PrinceOfCanada}}

Previous version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&oldid=243522208 21:44, 6 October 2008]

1st Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243537250&oldid=243534085 22:59, 6 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=243548660&oldid=243547524 00:00, 7 October 2008] (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} and myself are under a specific [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240717836&oldid=240714685 1RR restriction] initiated by {{user|Tiptoety}} as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which {{user|PrinceOfCanada}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceOfCanada&diff=240763339&oldid=240761327 agreed] (I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240721832&oldid=240718311 offered] similar conditions, and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G2bambino&diff=240915180&oldid=240767569 agreed].) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] reported by [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] (Result: 72 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone}}
* User: {{userlinks|Folken de Fanel}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&oldid=243506055]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243518290&oldid=243506055]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243533283&oldid=243528274]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243539411&oldid=243534780]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelion:_1.0_You_Are_(Not)_Alone&diff=243548469&oldid=243547218]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folken_de_Fanel&oldid=243556331]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. [[User:Hellbus|Hellbus]] ([[User talk:Hellbus|talk]]) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the ''content'' of their reverts.
:This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to ''communicate'' with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
:What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).

:No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.[[User:Folken de Fanel|Folken de Fanel]] ([[User talk:Folken de Fanel|talk]]) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Berdov|Berdov]] reported by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bill Ayers}}
* User: {{userlinks|Berdov}}

# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243521889 21:43, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243521889 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243545591 23:44, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243545591 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243554258 00:29, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243554258 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243562467 01:16, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243562467 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243565692 01:36, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243565692 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243568360 01:54, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243521513&diff=243568360 compare]) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243568120&oldid=243567271][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerdov&diff=243569736&oldid=243568120]

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

: The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that [[Commentary (magazine)]] is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an '''''opinion''''' piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: [[Joshua Muravchik]] is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the [[WP:BLP]] violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an '''''opinion'''''. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Have you ever actually read Commentary? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

===[[User:Berdov]] reported by [[User:Erik the Red 2]] (Result: )===
'''Same content as above report.'''

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. '''[[User:Grsz11|Grsz]][[User talk:Grsz11|X]]''' 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of [[WP:3RR]] himself on the same material on the same page.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243541403 23:22, 6 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243541403 compare]) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243555976 00:39, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243555976 compare]) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a [[wp:rs]]?")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243557768 00:49, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243557768 compare]) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&diff=prev&oldid=243559727 01:01, 7 October 2008] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill%20Ayers&oldid=243539915&diff=243559727 compare]) (edit summary: "")
:: He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243571676&oldid=243571390][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243578454&oldid=243577871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=243583406&oldid=243582975] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: ''"reverted in the addition''", so when was it there last? [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk:CENSEI|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the [[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]] 2 [[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]][[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]] 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Soman|Soman]] reported by [[User:59.95.108.209]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Bajrang Dal}}
* User: {{userlinks|Soman}}



* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243609778&oldid=243607573]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611553&oldid=243609778]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243611733&oldid=243611660]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243612308&oldid=243611915]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bajrang_Dal&diff=243613627&oldid=243613301]




* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoman&diff=243614807&oldid=243612148]



Block him please [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]] ([[User talk:59.95.108.209|talk]]) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has [[Special:Contributions/Pricedd|no other contributions]] and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- '''Logical''' '''[[User:Logical_Premise|Premise]]'''[[User_talk:Logical_Premise| Ergo?]] 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[User|76.224.68.237]] reported by [[User|Arcayne]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|I'm a PC}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.224.68.237}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243491469 14:16, October 6, 2008]



* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243642742&oldid=243591279 07:49, October 7, 2008]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243651860&oldid=243649858 08:46, October 7, 2008]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243657840&oldid=24365714109:20, October 7, 2008 ]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243683827&oldid=243682159 11:36, October 7, 2008 ]



* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243663579&oldid=243662667 09:53, October 7, 2008]
 Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243649868], Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jennavecia#HI.21] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly'' Thirty'' individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.

Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ''ninety'' times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T16:36:33Z

76.224.68.237: Undid revision 243682159 by Arcayne This is not Vandalism, the edits Do have support. Pls do not keep reverting ito "Your" version.

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

Diana Oughton

2008-10-07T15:58:06Z

76.224.68.237: /* The Townhouse Explosion */ m

{{Infobox person
|name=Diana Oughton
|image=Diana Oughton.jpg | imagesize = 100px
|birth_date=[[January 26]], [[1942]]
|birth_place=[[Chicago, Illinois]], [[United States of America|USA]]
|death_date=[[March 6]], [[1970]]
|death_place=[[Greenwich Village]], [[New York]], [[United States of America|USA]]
|known_for=Student Activist Teacher at Children's Community School in Ann Arbor, Michigan Member of Students for a Democratic Society Member of the Jesse James Gang Member of Weathermen Greenwich Village, New York Townhouse Explosion 1970}}
'''Diana Oughton''' ([[January 26]] [[1942]] - [[March 6]] [[1970]]) was a member of the 1960s radical group [[Weatherman (organization)|The Weathermen]]. Diana Oughton received her B.A. from [[Bryn Mawr]] and after graduating went to [[Guatemala]] with the [[Voluntary International Service Assigments|VISA]] program to work with young adults and older people.<ref>FBI files part 2 page 3</ref> After returning she worked at the Children's Community School in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]] while getting her Master's degree at the [[University of Michigan]]. She became very active in [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society]], eventually becoming a full-time organizer and member of the [[Jesse James Gang]].<ref>Powers 87</ref> With the split of SDS in 1969, she joined the Weathermen.

Oughton died in an explosion on March 6, 1970, in the [[Greenwich Village townhouse explosion]] in
[[New York City]], when a bomb she was constructing with [[Terry Robbins]] accidentally detonated, destroying the building and killing her, Robbins, and [[Ted Gold]].<ref>Powers, 183</ref>

==Early Life and Education==
Oughton was born on January 26, 1942 in Chicago, Illinois. She grew up in [[Dwight, Illinois]] as a member of a wealthy family who had been prominent in the town for decades. Her mother was Jane Boyce Oughton, her father was James Oughton Jr, vice president of the family bank, and owner of a successful restaurant.<ref>Powers 11</ref> One of Diana’s great-grandfathers was the founder of Dwight’s [[Keeley Institute]] for alcoholics, and another great-grandfather founded the [[Boy Scouts of America]].<ref>Powers, 10-11 </ref>

Diana Oughton left Dwight at age 14 to finish school at the [[Madeira School]] in Virginia; after graduating, she entered [[Bryn Mawr College|Bryn Mawr]] in 1959 as a German language major. When she was 19, Oughton went to Germany to spend her junior year at the [[University of Munich]], when she rented a room from the former rector of the university, Gerhard Weber, and his wife. After her study abroad, she returned to Bryn Mawr for her senior year in 1962 and began to tutor black children in the ghettos of Philadelphia.<ref>FBI files part 2 page 3</ref>

==Guatemala==
After receiving her B.A. degree from Bryn Mawr in 1963, Diana spent two years in Guatemala with the VISA program. Oughton was assigned to [[Chichicastenango]], at that time an isolated Indian market town. While there, Oughton worked with young adults and older people. Oughton lived like the Indians, in a small house with a dirt floor and a little outhouse.<ref>Ayers, 95</ref>

According to Thomas Powers, who wrote the family-authorized biography ''Diana: the making of a terrorist'', the more Diana learned about the hard life of rural Guatemala, the more she reflected on the affluence of the United States. In Chichicastenango, Americans seemed an alien presence, the fact of their wealth was almost an insult to the impoverished Indians. In her mind, a confusion emerged that lasted the rest of her life: she had rejected affluence (at first almost unconsciously) to work among the poor, but poverty, clearly, was nothing to be envied. She hated poverty, but she hated affluence, too.<ref>Powers, 35</ref>

Those who knew Diana Oughton recognized this period as the major turning point in her life; according to Powers, Diana came to feel something close to a sense of shame at being an American.<ref>Powers, 37</ref> In ''Fugitive Days'', [[Bill Ayers]] writes that Diana Oughton "had had an abundance of experience in Guatemala, a torrent, almost more than she could endure. She now sometimes suffered the full flood of her experiences".<ref>Ayers, 94</ref> Oughton became much more aware of the U.S. impact on foreign countries, and she did not return to Philadelphia the same Midwest Republican.

==Children’s Community School==
In 1966, Diana Oughton left Philadelphia for [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]] to enroll in the [[University of Michigan]] Graduate School of Education, seeking her Master’s degree in teaching. While there, she began to work at the Children’s Community School (CCS), a project founded by a group of students and based on the [[Summerhill]] method of education. Children were allowed to do what they liked when they liked, on the premise that both teaching and learning were most successful when most spontaneous.<ref>Powers, 59</ref> The School also tried to establish complete equality between white and black students and to involve parents in the running of the school, so that it might be a community in the largest sense of the word.<ref>Powers, 61</ref>

Oughton dedicated herself to the school and teaching and designed a fund-raising button that read, CHILDREN ARE ONLY NEWER PEOPLE.<ref>Powers, 69</ref> It was at CCS that Diana Oughton met Bill Ayers. The two fell in love and soon began living together. In 1968, when the school ran into severe problems and lost its funding, Oughton and Ayers sought to become active elsewhere in the community. <ref>FBI files part 2 page 3</ref>

==SDS and The Jesse James Gang==
Ayers and Oughton were involved with [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS) while working at CCS, but it was not until after the closure of the school that they became very involved as full-time organizers. In March 1968, Oughton helped create a women’s liberation group at a time when the issue was just beginning to emerge among radicals.<ref>Powers 73</ref> The group met every week or so, wherever it could find room. Most of the talk seemed to center on the subordinate role of women in the radical movement and on the sexual oppression of women by the “macho” tendency of males to regard sex as conquest. <ref>Powers, 73</ref>

In 1968, Oughton and Ayers became part of the [[Jesse James Gang]],<ref>Powers, 87</ref>, which replaced the University of Michigan SDS chapter. The Gang insisted that action was the only thing likely to create a situation in which radical solutions to American problems would be considered.<ref>Powers, 89</ref> The Gang offered a tight, validating community within which members could express their rage and frustration about the [[status quo]], and their empathy for suffering.<ref>Wilkerson, 226</ref>

==Weathermen==
With the split of SDS in 1969, Oughton and Ayers joined the [[Weatherman (organization)|Weathermen]]. At this time, protests became more violent and radical than they had been in SDS. Part of this move towards greater violence was seen during the "[[Days of Rage]]" in Chicago, taking place on October 8-11 of 1969. One purpose of the "Days of Rage" was to create an image of strength and determination that would win converts to revolutionary violence.<ref>Powers, 135</ref> Diana Oughton was one of the people arrested in October of 1969 in Chicago; her bail was set at $5,000, which her father came up from Dwight to pay. After she was released, Mr. Oughton dropped his daughter off at a church where she was meeting up with other Weathermen; shortly afterwards, police raided the church and arrested 43 members of the group. Oughton managed to escape by jumping out of a window.<ref>Powers 156</ref>

After the "Days of Rage", the group became increasingly more violent. In her book ''Flying Close to the Sun'', former [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]] member [[Cathy Wilkerson]] describes meeting up with [[Terry Robbins]], also a member of the Jesse James Gang, who told her about a small, semi-clandestine group in New York to which he belonged. He explained briefly that the group had already been active: a firebomb had been thrown at the home of Judge Murtagh, then presiding over the trial of the [[Panther 21]].<ref>Wilkerson, 324</ref> When Wilkerson joined the collective, the members were in need of a place to stay. Her father had a townhouse in New York but would be away for a couple of weeks, and Terry Robbins wondered whether Wilkerson could get the keys.<ref>Wilkerson, 332</ref> She did so, and the group arrived at 18 West 11th Street to figure out their next move.

[[Jonah Raskin]], whose wife [[Eleanor Raskin]] was part of the [[Weather Underground Organization]], and who was himself a courier for the Underground,<ref>Dohrn, 124</ref> recalls the last time he spoke with the members of the collective in New York: "I had talked to them not long before the townhouse blew up and they seemed to have lost touch with reality- and were incapable of making sensible decisions about almost everything."<ref>Dohrn, 126</ref>

==The Townhouse Explosion==
{{main|Greenwich Village townhouse explosion}}
On Monday, March 2, 1970, in Keene, New Hampshire, a Weatherman purchased two 50-pound cases of dynamite from the New England Explosives Corporation. Sometime that week, the dynamite was moved from Keene to [[Greenwich Village]], New York where it was taken to the house at 18 West Eleventh Street. Diana Oughton left Detroit and joined the group at the house. On Friday of the same week, Oughton and Terry Robbins were in the basement assembling a bomb when it accidentally detonated.<ref>Powers, 183</ref> Cathy Wilkerson, who was in the townhouse at the time, describes her experience during the explosion, "the idea that Terry and Diana were both in the subbasement overwhelmed everything else. As I forced my attention there and to them, my lungs expanded instantaneously to draw in air and dust so I could call out."<ref>Wilkerson, 346</ref>

Wilkerson and [[Kathy Boudin]], another Weatherman in the townhouse at the time, were the only two to escape. When they ran out into the street, someone asked if there was anyone else in the house. Thinking that [[Ted Gold]], the other Weatherman in the townhouse, had gone to the store, Wilkerson replied that no, there was no one left inside. She knew that Terry and Diana were gone.<ref>Wilkerson, 347</ref>

Four days after the explosion, detectives found some of Oughton’s remains near a workbench in the rubble-filled basement of the devastated townhouse. At the end of another week, a detective discovered the tip of the little finger from the right hand. A print taken by a police department expert was matched later that day with a set of Oughton’s prints in the Washington files of the F.B.I.<ref>FBI files, part 3 page 17</ref> The prints they had on file were from Oughton’s arrest in Chicago on October 9, 1969 during the Days of Rage.

It took four days to find Diana Oughton’s remains, not only because of the amount of destruction the bomb had caused -- the townhouse was destroyed -- but also because of the dynamite found in the wreckage. While searching through the rubble, detectives found four lead pipes, each 12 inches in diameter and packed with dynamite. The street was cleared, the bomb-removal truck was summoned, and the search continued with considerably greater caution. Before the day was over, detectives found four cartons containing 57 sticks of dynamite, 30 blasting caps, and some cheap alarm clocks with holes drilled in their faces for the attaching of wires.<ref>Powers, 3</ref> It was understood later that the bombs were to have been detonated at a non-commissioned officers' dance at [[Fort Dix]]. <ref>Wilkerson, 341</ref>

The doctor who examined Oughton’s remains said she had been standing within a foot or two of the bomb when it exploded. It may, in fact, have gone off in her hands.<ref>FBI files part 3 page 17</ref> Diana Oughton was buried at age 28 in Dwight, Illinois on Tuesday, March 24, 1970. Ayers has raised the possibility that Oughton may have intentionally detonated the explosion, it has been reported that a vicious argument occured during all of the previous day and night in which Boudin favored using antipersonnel bombs, and that Oughton had misgivings.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0D6103BF933A0575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print]

When [[Brian Flanagan]] reflects on his time as part of the Weather Underground Organization, he has this to say: "I was regretful over about 5 percent of what we did." He added, "I think 95 percent of what we did was great, and we'd do it again." "And what was the 5 percent? The town house." When pressed, Flanagan said that he regretted "the deaths of the three Weathermen Ted Gold, Diana Oughton and Terry Robbins and the plan to bomb the dance at Fort Dix and the library at Columbia, which could have taken lives."<ref>Wakin</ref>

The Townhouse Explosion was the tragic and dramatic culmination of the grim political direction in which Weatherman had been headed.<ref>Berger, 130</ref> [[Laura Whitehorn]], former member of Weatherman, says, "We were out of touch with what was going on, and we lost sight of the fact that if you’re a revolutionary, the first thing you have to try to do is preserve human life."<ref>Berger, 130</ref>

==Diana after Death==
*A 1975 TV movie, "Katherine", starring Art Carney, Sissy Spacek, Henry Winkler, Julie Kavner, Jane Wyatt, tells the story of "Katherine Alman", who was from a wealthy Denver family, became socially active, served as a teacher of English in South America, then joined a radical "Collective" which had many similarities to the SDS and eventually the Weatherman. The "Collective" protested the Vietnam War, invaded a High School, Held a "War Council" and eventually split into peaceful and violent factions. The story ended with Katherine's death, due to the bombing of a government building that did not go as planned.

*[[James Merrill]] wrote a poem titled “18 West 11th Street“. Merrill had grown up in the townhouse that was sold to Cathy Wilkerson’s father, by whom it was owned at the time of the bombing.

*Richard M. Pearlstein wrote ''The Mind of the Political Terrorist'', in which he attempted to provide insight into the individual psychological dimensions of political terrorism.<ref>Crenshaw</ref> Diana Oughton is one of the individuals he uses as a case study.

*Paul Kantner sang about Diana in Sunfighter (1971), here are some of the lyrics:

How do you feel to shoot down your brother now 
And bury us in cages of cement and steel 
What do you see when you look at one another now 
Who do you see tell me how do you feel 

Sing a song for the children who are gone 
Sing a song for Diana 
Huntress of the moon and a lady of the Earth 
Weather woman Diana <ref>Kantner</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*Ayers, Bill. "Fugitive Days". Boston, Ma: Beacon Press, 2001.
*Berger, Dan. "Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity". Oakland, Ca: AK Press, 2006.
*Crenshaw, Martha, Reviewed Work(s): The Mind of the Political Terrorist by Richard M. Pearlstein Political Psychology > Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 169-171
*Dohrn, Bernardine, Ayers, Bill, and Jones, Jeff, editors. "Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiqués of the Weather Underground", 1970-1974. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006.
*''Double Feature - The Boy in the Plastic Bubble - Katherine #03877'' (PC Treasures, Inc. 2006, 2765 Metamora Rd. Oxford, MI 48371) [Note: 1975 Fictionalized TV Movie "Based on a True Story" - Written and Directed by Jeremy Kagan. The movie mixes drama with documentary style commentaries, and authentic audio/video footage of the period.]
*F.B.I. files. http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/oughton_diana.htm
*Kantner, Paul. “Diana.” Sunfighter (1971). Grunt Label. http://www.lyrics007.com/Paul%20Kantner%20Lyrics/Diana%20Lyrics.html
*Powers, Thomas. "Diana: the making of a terrorist". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971.
*Wakin, Daniel J. International Herald Tribune Paris. Aug 28, 2003: 4.
*Wilkerson, Cathy. "Flying too Close to the Sun". New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007.

==External links==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073229/ IMDB Entry on "Katherine" movie]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Oughton, Diana}}
[[Category:COINTELPRO targets]]
[[Category:1942 births]]
[[Category:1970 deaths]]
[[Category:Weather Underground]]
[[Category:Bryn Mawr College alumni]]

Diana Oughton Gravesite: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=5184
Find A Grave

Greenwich Village townhouse explosion

2008-10-07T15:56:22Z

76.224.68.237: /* Controversy */ m

{{Infobox civilian attack
|title = Accidental detonation in Greenwich Village townhouse
|image = FDNY responds to Weatherman townhouse explosion.jpg
|caption = Firefighters contain blaze fed by broken gas lines caused by explosion
|location = Subbasement furnace room at 18 West 11th Street [[New York City]]
|date = [[March 6]], [[1970]]
|time =
|timezone =
|type =
|fatalities = 3 members of the [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]]: [[Theodore Gold]], age 22 [[Diana Oughton]], 28 [[Terry Robbins]], 22
|perps =
|weapons = Dynamite, during bomb assembly
}}

The '''Greenwich Village townhouse explosion''' was the premature detonation of a bomb as it was being assembled by members of the American "urban guerilla" organization, [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]] (later rechristened the Weather Underground), in the basement of a [[townhouse]] at 18 West 11th Street in New York City's [[Greenwich Village]]. The three persons nearest the bomb were killed, two others in the house were slightly injured, and the four story townhouse was reduced to rubble and caught fire.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-07"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E14FF3C5A157493C5A91788D85F448785F9
| title= Townhouse Razed By Blast and Fire; Man's Body Found
| date= [[1970-03-07]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> Shortly before noon on Friday, [[March 6]], [[1970]], people in the townhouse were assembling [[anti-personnel weapon]]s armed with roofing nails and packed with dynamite. Years later, former members of the organization who had not been at the scene advanced differing (but not incompatible) claims as to the plans for use of the bombs. Thus, according to [[Mark Rudd]], the plan was to set them off that evening at a dance for noncommissioned officers at the [[Fort Dix|Fort Dix, New Jersey]] Army base.<ref name= "name">{{cite web
| url= http://www.markrudd.com/Homepage/Harpers%20piece.htm
| title=The Kids are All Right
| last= Rudd
| first= Mark
|authorlink=Mark Rudd
| quote=
| accessdate= 2008-08-03}}</ref> According to a detractor, "former members" have reported that some of the bombs were destined for the Fort Dix dance and others for Butler Library at [[Columbia University]].<ref name=djwnyt82403>{{cite news |first=Daniel |last=Wakin |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Quieter Lives for 60's Militants, but Intensity of Beliefs Hasn't Faded |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E4DE1539F937A1575BC0A9659C8B63 |quote=|publisher=[[New York Times]] |date=[[August 24]], [[2003]] |accessdate=2008-06-07 }}</ref>

==Immediate aftermath==
Killed by the blast were [[Ted Gold|Theodore Gold]], [[Diana Oughton]], and [[Terry Robbins]]. Surviving in a stunned and bleeding state were Weatherman members [[Kathy Boudin]] and [[Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson|Cathlyn Wilkerson]], who were upstairs at the moment of the blast. The two survivors were led out from the burning structure by a police officer and the off-duty New York City Housing Authority patrolman who had entered in search of survivors.<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= The House On West 11th Street. |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E4DB1638F936A35750C0A9669C8B63 |quote=|publisher=[[New York Times]] |date=[[March 5]], [[2000]] |accessdate=2008-04-22 }}</ref> The rescuers were treated at [[Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Center|St. Vincent's Hospital]] for smoke inhalation.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-07"/>

Boudin and Wilkerson disappeared before they could be questioned. They had been free on bail on assault charges stemming from the [[Days of Rage]] riots in Chicago.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/> A neighbor who rendered aid after the blast described them as "dazed and trembling" as they were led "staggering" from the wreckage, one clad only in blue jeans and the other naked. The neighbor brought them to her house, where they showered, borrowed some clothing and told a housekeeper they were going to a local drugstore, then got into a taxi and disappeared.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12wager"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C15FD3C5A157493C0A81788D85F448785F9
| title= Neighbor Tells of Aiding 2 'Dazed' Young Women
| date= [[1970-03-12]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-06 }}</ref><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-11"/>

The building was owned by Wilkerson's father, a radio-station executive.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A17FD3C5A157493C0A81788D85F448785F9
| title= Miss Wilkerson's Parents Make Plea For Her to Clarify Toll in Bombing
| date= [[1970-03-12]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> As the search for bodies continued days after the explosion, Wilkerson's parents made a televised appeal to their missing daughter to avoid needlessly risking the lives of searchers. They asked her to "let us know how many more people, if any, are still left in the ruins of our home", saying "more lives would be needlessly lost and only you have the key".<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/>

==Investigation==
The blast was initially thought to be a series of natural gas explosions, but investigators quickly concluded from the extent of the damage that dynamite or some other powerful explosive was the cause. Gas lines broken by the blast fed an ensuing fire.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/> According to the police investigator in charge, "The people in the house were obviously putting together the component parts of a bomb and they did something wrong."<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-11"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C17FC3C5A157493C3A81788D85F448785F9
| title= Bombs, Dynamite and Woman's Body Found in Ruins of 11th St. Townhouse
| date= [[1970-03-11]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref>

An initial search turned up a 1916 37-mm. [[anti-tank warfare|antitank]] [[shell (projectile)|shell]].<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-10"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30710F83D5C1B7493C2A81788D85F448785F9
| title= 1916 Antitank Shell Is Found In Rubble of 'Village' Building
| date= [[1970-03-10]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> In the following days, a brick-by-brick search of the rubble uncovered 57 sticks of [[dynamite]], four {{convert|12|in|mm|sing=on}} [[pipe bomb]]s packed with dynamite, and 30 [[blasting cap]]s. The pipe bombs and several eight-stick packages of dynamite had [[fuse (explosives)|fuses]] already attached. Also found were [[timer|timing devices]] rigged from alarm clocks, maps of the tunnel network underneath [[Columbia University]], and literature of the political protest organization, [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)]], from which the [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]] organization had split off.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-11"/><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-10"/> Police described the building as a "bomb factory", and said that at the time of the explosion dynamite was apparently being wrapped in tape with nails embedded to act as [[shrapnel]].<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-16"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10912FC355E1A718DDDAF0994DB405B808BF1D3
| title= More Body Parts Discovered In Debris of Blast on 11th Street
| date= [[1970-03-16]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-10 }}</ref>

The crime scene was gory. It took nine days of collecting body parts to determine how many persons had died in the blast. Fingerprint records were required to identify the corpses of [[Ted Gold|Theodore Gold]], a leader of the 1968 [[Columbia University protests of 1968|Columbia University student protests]], and [[Diana Oughton]], the organizer of the 1969 SDS national convention. <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-09"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1091FF6345C117688DDA00894DB405B808BF1D3
| title= 'Village' Fire Victim Identified as Leader of '68 Columbia Strike
| date= [[1970-03-09]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-09 }}</ref> <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-18"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5091FF83C5A157493CAA81788D85F448785F9
| title= 2d Victim in Blast Is Identified Here
| date= [[1970-03-18]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-10 }}</ref> <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-15"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40915F73A55107A93C7A81788D85F448785F9
| title= 3d Blast Victim Is Found In Ruins of Townhouse
| date= [[1970-03-15]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-06 }}</ref> <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-16"/> As to the identity of the third corpse, rumors circulated in radical circles that it was that of [[Terry Robbins]], a leader of the 1968 [[Kent State University]] student rebellion and a founder of the Weathermen, who would be indicted the following month along with 11 others for organizing and inciting riots during the "Days of Rage".<ref name= "NYT_1970-04-03"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D11FB385B107B93C1A9178FD85F448785F9
| title= 12 S.D.S. Militants Indicted in Chicago
| date= [[1970-04-03]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| quote= A Federal grand jury indicted 12 leaders of the Weathermen today on charges of conspiracy and violation of the Federal antiriot act.
| accessdate= 2007-12-10 }}</ref> That May, this rumor was confirmed in a communique purportedly issued by the Weathermen. The message was a "declaration of war" by the organization which warned that it would "attack a symbol or institution of American injustice" within the next two weeks. This communique named Robbins as the third body and described Gold, Oughton, and Robbins as revolutionaries "no longer on the move".<ref name= "NYT_1970-05-25"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D17FF3B5A157493C7AB178ED85F448785F9
| title= A Radical 'Declaration' Warns Of an Attack by Weathermen
| date= [[1970-05-25]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-09 }}</ref>

==The fate of the survivors==
Neighbors positively identified Wilkerson as one of the two women who had been led out from the wreckage. Boudin was not positively identified as the second survivor until some weeks later.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12wager"/> Both women were charged with illegal possession of dynamite in the townhouse blast. They forfeited their bail on the above mentioned Chicago assault charges by failing to appear in Chicago for trial ten days later.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/> The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) placed them on its [[FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives|Ten Most Wanted Fugitives]] list, but they succeeded in avoiding capture for a decade. Wilkerson surrendered in 1980. Boudin was apprehended in 1981 for her role in the [[Brinks robbery (1981)|Brink's armored car robbery]].

==The house==
The townhouse at 18 West 11th Street was originally built in 1845. In the 1920s it belonged to [[Charles E. Merrill]], cofounder of [[Merrill Lynch]], who lived there with his family until 1931.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chattarji|first=Subarno |title=Memories of a Lost War: American Poetic Responses to the Vietnam War|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|date=2001|pages=50|isbn=0199247110}}</ref> The bombing is lamented in a poem by Merrill's son, the poet [[James Merrill]], titled with the address of the house: "Shards of a blackened witness still in place. / The charred ice-sculpture garden / Beams fell upon. . . ."<ref>"18 West 11th Street." {{cite book|last=Merrill|first=James|title=Collected Poems|editor=J. D. McClatchy and Stephen Yenser|publisher=Knopf|location=new York|date=2002|pages=316|isbn=037570941X}}</ref>

==Controversy==

Ayers has raised the possibility that Oughton may have intentionally detonated the explosion, it has been reported that a vicious argument occurred during all of the previous day and night in which Boudin favored using antipersonnel bombs, and that Oughton had misgivings.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0D6103BF933A0575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== Eternal links ==
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17534987#17478269 Excerpt: ''Flying Close to the Sun,'' by Cathy Wilkerson]

[[Category:Weather Underground]]
[[Category:Opposition to the Vietnam War]]
[[Category:History of New York City]]
[[Category:Accidental explosion disasters in the United States]]
[[Category:1970 in the United States]]
[[Category:Greenwich Village]]

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T15:50:04Z

76.224.68.237: Added section

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Relevance of Vista, which the campaign does not reference, to an article on a branding campaign ==

:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:I'm a PC

2008-10-07T15:48:15Z

76.224.68.237: /* Large-scale edits */ reply

{{dyktalk|5 October|2008}}

== Citations ==

I didn't really format all of the citations with templates, as there are so many out there that better citations than the ones I chose might be found by some enterprising soul with oodles of time on their hands, and there's no sense in wasting time before the citations are found to be stable and acceptable to all. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:I'll finish it up tomorrow... going to bed now. Btw, it feels like too many of the citations are about mac traces in the images of the commercials - makes me a bit uncomfortable about the neutrality of the article - but I think my changes to the lead really helped that issue. Anyways, I'll keep reviewing these citations. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 05:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::the work was excellent, and I altered some of them because - in the final analysis, that which makes the ad campaign more notable than a new jingle song for Campbell's soup is the bone-headed move by Microsoft in allowing their ads to be made on their competitor's computers. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's kinda known that graphic designers have a fetish for Apple's products and it works well with Apple's main theme of simplicity in design. Considering this, there's really no surprise in having the commercials being made with Macs - although it is a bit awkward for Microsoft and CPB that they didn't think about this issue. Anyways, I'm concerned that this article promotes a "boneheaded" narrative rather than just tell what happened in a neutral encyclopedic way. To clarify, I feel you've re-admitted [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] material in the introduction regarding Microsoft's reaction to one section of criticism. It is already in the body of the article and is not that big a detail that it should be prominently displayed, taking up one sixth of the introduction to the article. I'll be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] for now, in hoping you will agree with me, and remove the re-addition of the text from the lead - but if you disagree, I would not object for external opinions on this.
:::Cheers, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I do disagree. Vehemently. While you note that the "fetish" for Apple products means that commercials are made with Macs, you missed the main point. I don't think anyone would have really cared that Apple Macs were used to make the commercials. What is damning is that Microsoft chose to data-scrub any connection to Apple, therefore admitting to the embarrassment. It is most certainly not undue weight to note that, both in the lead (which is a summary of the article) and in the body of the criticism section. I, of course, have put the removed statement back in. Please remember that BRD means that, once reverted, the discussion cycle begins - not post your rationale before reinstating your edit without a discussion of the matter. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The data-scrubbing is notable for the body of the article but I don't see it as "damning" that Microsoft chose to delete some metadata. Please remember that we're not trying to show-up Microsoft but rather to tell the story in a neutral manner. To be frank, the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242319328 looked like] it were written by a Macintosh employee first time I laid eyes on it with the majority of references leading to "PC guy uses Mac" blog sites. The lead seemed to portray Microsoft as an incompetent failure trying to chase Apple. Sure, the errors are notable but the criticism already takes up half the article space and this tidbit of deleting metadata is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead since it looks like Wikipedia is trying to hammer a point. Anyways, I'll open this issue for outside opinion in a sec so we can see what others think. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 16:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::I do have to say, upon a quick look through some diff's and the article history that it appears Jaakobou is making changes within the scopes of [[WP:NPOV]] and I encourage all parties to continue discussions here before making any further controversial changes. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral third party, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the article as it stands. Could perhaps use a little beefing up in terms of describing the advertisements, core messaging of the ads, and public/journalistic reactions to them, but beyond that it's looking relatively well-balanced, in my opinion. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no issue with the ref work that Jaakobou performed, as it was largely non-controversial, but I did find problems with some of his assumptions that it was written by an ''Apple'' employee (I created and expanded the article, so it was a notably pigeon-toed lapse in good-faith, as far as I was concerned). J made almost 50 edits to the article, and discussed approximately none of them, until asked. This is a community, and when one makes edits they can be reasonably sure are contentious, its time to head to the discussion page. When you are reverted, it becomes doubly-more important. Interpreting the discussion part of the BRD cycle as 'post why i did it and revert back in the same edit again' does not work, and I am of the opinion that half of the addle-pated, lame-ass edit-warring that occurs in Wikipedia would would simply vanish if people actually presumed to work with others. Jaak isn't a moron, and neither am I. I expect discussion on those points where we disagree; its how consensus and compromise are found.
:That aside, that Microsoft attempted to conceal the fact that their ad campaign was created on a competitor's machines - an ad campaign that ironically points out how their machines are ''everywhere'' in both ironic, notable and encyclopedic. Does that mean the article is about that, and that alone? Nope. But it does get pointed out, for the bone-headed move it is with plenty of citation. And frankly, i take exception to the BS implication that I added only those sources from Mac-friendly sources and blogs. InfoWeek and ComputerWorld and PC World are not Mac-friendly environments, and the latter is specifically geared towards the PC market. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Again, I am willing to work with anyone; I am not willing to work against the ''fait accompli'' consisting of a mass number of edits that deserve further discussion and a consensus. Please feel free to re-add the refs, and I will help with that - it needs no real discusion. the moving, removing and "tweaking" of statements deserves and should be discussed. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Arcayne,
::Article had lapses in neutrality as well as the clear [[WP:MOS|style]] issues. Most issues were superficial with a small number of them - like excessive criticism and mentioning of Apple - of more room for discussion. Still, If our only argument is about stuff like the lead paragraph, then I'm having difficulty with the rest of your mass revert.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] The references were destroyed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216#References] as well as a good number of basic cleanups which should not elicit any argument. Other basic changes like placing together criticisms rather than have Microsoft's "official press release" sandwiched between should be fairly clear as well. Anyways, I see not everything was returned and I'm left to question of why you'd rephrase some of the text but wipe out the ref work.
::'''The glaring problems''' in the change are the changes to the first and second 'campaign' paragraphs where currently, there's a needless repetition of ''"Mac Vs. PC"'' in ''3 paragraphs in a row'' on what is supposed to be the description of ''Microsoft's'' campaign.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242593066&oldid=242584216] Also a glaring issue is the destruction of the reference work.
::We've had a 3rd and 4th external opinions about the status of the article prior to your edit so there is no point in talking about this as though we're having an edit-war. I'm still unpersuaded in the extra value of pushing the "they deleted metadata" text into the lead, but certainly the changes to the "campaign" section of the article ("Mac Vs. PC" in every paragraph) are a clear violation of [[WP:NPOV]].
::-- [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 08:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) c-m 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not sure I understand the substance of your objections. First of all, Both Tiptoety and myself indicated that we didn't see problems with the article, and Tiptoety asked that everyone refrain from making any controversial changes before discussing them here. Clearly the changes you made are controversial in Jaakobu's opinion, while Jaakobu's are controversial in yours. Might I ask that as an act of good faith you undo your last edit, and outline here what specific issues you have with the article, and your suggestions for addressing those issues? Here's an example of what I mean:
*'''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''' - I feel this places undue emphasis on his destination, can we rewrite as "Fred walked down the street"?
I would also note, that in the lead there is a misuse of "it's" (should be "its), and excessive use of [[WP:PEACOCK|'peacock words']] such as 'lampooned' and 'embarrassment'; this trend continues through the article, and certainly raises [[WP:NPOV]] questions.

So could you please list here, point by point, what your objections are so that everyone can address them and we can all work together to create a well-written and neutral article? Thank you. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:I opened in the meantime a notice of the concerns on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 DYK page]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Trusting this won't be an issue, I've currently made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242725291&oldid=242593066 series] of small edits (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&action=history history]) to only fix the references and did not change any content. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) another link. 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Last point first:
:# I have no issue with the correction of the refs. It was difficult to separate the ref work from the content changes and I had already said I had no issue with them being reinserted.
:# I am unsure how noting that MS scrubbed the images is a violation of NPOV. I can see how the characterizations can be seen as NPOV, though. The problem presented is that the sources themselves make this characterization, not me.
:# I have no issue with avoiding the repetition of the Mac Vs. PC (Get a Mac) ad campaign. It deserves notable mention, as it is in fact the driving force behind the "I'm A PC" campaign specific ways that the Seinfeld/Gates ads aren't. Multiple citation note this.
:# I will avoid the assumption of edit-warring on Jaak's part, as I am sure he wants to work with folk; I am notably on record within Wikipedia being ''strongly'' in favor of discussion - in fact almost excessively in favor of it, so as to find consensus and compromise, and to avoid equally excessively edit-reverting. Major edits without getting input ''beforehand'' is just asking for trouble. This isn't just a personal preference; it is the 'D' part of the BRD model of consensus.
:# If you have a citation that ''"Fred walked down the street towards the corner"''', then it isn't undue weight to note it, because you aren't making the deduction - someone citable is.
:# "lampooned" and "embarrassed" appear in the citations, I think. Had I been the one to add descriptives, I would have used "ironic" and "bone-headed". ;)
:# ''actor'' Eva Longoria - the usage of actor is gender neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actor 1] and less offensive term, as actress is considered within the field to be somehow less than the gender neutral form.
:# I am also concerned about the redlinks created by wikilinking Sean Siler and Geoff Green. While an article could conceivably be created for the latter, as he is heavily involved in activities that could be considered notable, Siler isn't of sufficient, objective evidence to be considered notable. Notability is not temporary.
:# The placement of the MS press release, defending the usage of Macs appears where it does as it chronologically follows the chain of events after the discovery, Frankly, I cannot remember whether the scrubbing occurred before or after the press release (someone pipe up about that?).
:# The data-scrubbing is important to note because MS was intentionally trying to remove evidence of its cock-up in the face of criticism (or rather, ridicule).

:Frankly, I find the listing of NPOV concerns by Jaak in DYK to be offensive in the ''extreme''. As there was precisely ''nothing'' that affected the DYK's qualification (or is Jaak now arguing that the MS ads were ''not'' made on Macs, despite dozens of citations to the contrary?), it seems retaliatory and designed to slow down the acceptance of the DYK because I object to some of his edits here. I would think that striking it ''immediately'' might be an excellent way to start us down the road to more happier editing. As there is no factual incorrectness of the DYK, and the sole purpose of DYK is to draw new people to the article, Jaak's comment there was unnecessary. I don't want to have to go to DYK and call it for what it is, because that might create more problems than it solves. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Allow me to address the points raised:
:# I was aware of this and moved ahead.
:# More [[WP:UNDUE]] than [[WP:NPOV]]. The language used - i.e. "embarrassment compounded" also raises concerns of [[WP:PEACOCK]] as a fellow wikipedian above us noted.
:# I was concerned that the term "Mac vs. PC" appears three times in three paragraphs. Surely our English is richer than that and it saddened me that you reverted this fairly simple change among the others. Since you seem to agree on this, I'll be bold and change it back - if you disagree, feel free to revert.
:# I agree in general.
:# Please review [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. The lead should be a simple introduction of the article issues focusing on the subject - not on the minor details of the criticism. I'm sure we'll discuss this point further.
:# Ironic is fair use for the body of the article when noted to the person making the assertion. Lampooned is blogsphere language and while we allow blogs on as reliable sources for this article - it doesn't mean that we should mimic their style; more-so in the lead. I guess we'll be forced to further discuss this point as well; possibly get more community input if mine and that of Prince is not enough.
:# I don't mind this issue so much.
:# Please review [[WP:REDLINK]]. Article is supposed to get community notice once it becomes DYK and ''"Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."'' DYK articles benefit from a few red links for notable issues.
:# Placement of MS official response should stand on it's own and not between digs about the irony of MS's miss. This is a major neutrality concern. It is not customary for respectable news sources to place one side in the middle of two people who attack him. Usually the response is given at the end or right before a closing statement by the reporter (not blogger).
:# I agree that it is important and gave it more than enough volume within the body of the criticism section. However, the current writing of the lead is just "ass-clowned themselves into a pickle" as you put it on my talkpage. I'm open to some encyclopedic mention of this - feel free to make some rewrite attempt and we'll see if it works for me.
:I hope I addressed all points in a satisfactory manner. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::In the order discussed:
::# {{Resolved}}
::# They scrubbed the data, and its cited that they did so. It is further notes via neutral, reliable sources as to why they did so. It isn't pov to note it. "embarrassment compounded" was a paraphrasing of the various cites that noted the scrubbing, and ''their'' comments ranged from "regrettable" to "stupid". I thought I was hitting the middle ground. Not noting the foolishness of the error, when there are multiple citations that point it out as such - well, that ''is'' pov. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# While we don't necessarily need the redundancy of the Mac Vs. Pc mentioning, it is important that we do refer to it as an ad campaign, as "tv commercials" your most recent edit, seemingly renders them unconnected, which I think no one here thinks. Both ad campaigns are valid, and we don't love one more than the other, so we don't downplay the classification of one over the other. (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::#{{resolved}} Glad we are in agreement about discussing before editing, Jaak.
::# Incorrect, the Lead is both an introduction to the article as well as a summary of such - noting the breadth of the criticisms (which are not, as you've suggested, "minor details"). As well, suggesting I review core policies can be taken as snippy (I should know, I've done that often enough back in my earlier editing days); let's all presume we bring the same level of cogency about wiki policy and guidelines, okay?
::#Yes, we probably will have to discuss this matter in greater detail, Jaak. I don't like ranging too far from the source material ('lampooned' was a direct quote from the source), as it dances along the line of OR. As well, let's avoid using the term blogosphere, as its kinda negative, and in accurately used here. Let's iron out the other issues, and we'll come back to this.
::#{{resolved}}
::# {{resolved}} Regarding the redlink, as I noted before, we need to establish the notability - beyond the simple scope of this ad - for Sean Siler. For example, the Mac ads feature Hodgson, who had other popular exposure prior to being used in the ads, as did Justin Long. Siler appears to have a sense of humor, but there's no notability in that, ''per se''. Geoff Green is okay to link, as there is an opening for creating an article based out of his notability arising out of his other activities.
::# I don't see the NPOV concern, except that perhaps you see the placement as a kick at MS. The info is presented in chronological order: the ads are discovered to be made on Macs, then MS issues a statement, then it scrubs the info to hide that it ever happened. That is how the matter progressed. Are you seriously suggesting that it didn't? (''addressed in subsection, below'')
::# I am unsure what you are saying; perhaps not using my quotes about something else will assist in explaining your position better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Lastly, i am not sure why you ignored my request to withdraw your retaliatory comment at DYK, but you should know that you aren't going to get much rhythm until it's redacted or at least stricken. It was bad form, and it served to create unnecessary friction. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I was asked to comment about #3, and I have to say that I agree with Arcayne's justification for using "campaign" instead of commercials, though it does take away from the readability of the sentence and causes it to not flow as smoothly as it would if the same word was not used twice. Personally I think the whole sentence needs to be re-written because it took me at least two times of reading it over to really understand what it was saying. Just my 2 cents, [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Spokesperson cites==
I'm still not crazy about the sources for the claim that the people in the commercial are Mac fans. The first source used (Sydney Morning Herald) says ''their'' source is "Silicon Valley gossip blog Valleywag" and the fact that Chopra likes iPods (which are obviously not Macs). The second and third sources seem kinda bloggy, too. The first one is a mac site and the second is what seems to be a gossip blog. Aren't there any non-blogger sources for that? [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] [[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]] 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: I remember reading one mainstream one right off the bat that pointed to the irony of "self-proclaimed" mac users being used in the ad, but can't remember which one. The cite is in the article, though.
: Also, I thought that some tech blogs are not the same sorts of blogs that we exclude, as the writers of such are considered reliable and part of the industry (therefore notable), like Harry Knowles is for film and AICN.- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Leftovers ==

List of current issues... some of the relevant discussion can be found '''[[#Citations|here]]'''. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

=== MS scrubbing the images - in the lead ===
I'm concerned that this detail is used in a [[WP:PEACOCK]]/[[WP:UNDUE]] manner. 
p.s. I can't avoid using the term blogosphere because these are the majority of the [[I'm_a_PC#References|sources]] we have on this article. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:The metadata thing in the lead seems a bit off - that they were using a Mac is embarrassing enough, but the details don't seem relevant until the criticism section (might also want a "discovery"-like section, but I don't know whether it was the campaign or its criticism which is more notable.) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::The lead serves as both the introduction as well as the overview/summary of the article. Noting the criticism seems on point. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, certainly. I just think it's too specific for the lead is all. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've made an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242848734&oldid=242845390 edit], attempting to address that. Thoughts? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't believe your edit addressed the core of the concern. I would like the see the lead paragraph regarding the criticism appear like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 Golbez version]):

:::::The campaign has been criticized for having used notable supporters of various Apple products as well as it's commercials being revealed to have been created largely on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

:::The rest of the ''"an embarrassment compounded when..."'' (in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242861785&oldid=242535965 current version]) is redundant to the core descriptive and presents an undue addition IMHO. To quote Xavegoem above me: ''"it's too specific for the lead"''. There also seems to have been generated an English problem with the break off of the "supporters of various Apple products" text. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I also think undue weight is being given to this minor fact here. Is this really such a big deal? The introduction should be kept clear and easy to understand. Yes, it is indeed an embarassment to Microsoft. But we don't have to write all details in the first mentioning of it. I'm siding with Jaakobou here. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how its a minor fact. I mean, MS issued a press release for the mistake, which should have been the ''end'' of their response. It was not; they made an effort to conceal that mistake, which only exacerbated the problem. Example: a person openly and repeatedly notes how their child is the best painter in the world. Then it is revealed that the artwork the child paints was actually painted by someone else. Instead of issuing an apology and noting reasons for the usage of the ther artist, the parent attempts to concea the fact that the other painter ever painted the images. The initial mistake is notable - sad and pathetic, but notable. As well, the activity to conceal the matter is notable. We have significant and notable citation through a variety of sources that speak to the issue. It isn't undue weight to note it, since ''other sources have specifically and pointedly noted it.''
:::::- [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm afraid that you've reverted against clear community input. It is a good practice to take a step back when there is a consensus among uninvolved editors. I was trying to come up with a collaborative compromise suggestion that will allow us to circumvent this consensus to something that you would be happier with but was really unable to come up with a good one. In the procces, I also realized that the titles of all the relevant articles is "Microsoft used Macs" and not "Microsoft scrubbed metadata". I'm not sure any of this is persuasive to you, but I'm open to an RfC or some other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process if you insist. However, a revert which ignores the current consensus is somewhat disruptive at this point in time. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to add sources that state that Microsoft did ''not'' use Macs, or that they did ''not'' scrub the data. You are welcome to add sources that speak to the rest of the campaign, but we have citations - notable citations - that explicitly state what is currently in the article. As they are verifiable, and from notable sources, I don't see the slightest reason to exclude them. If you feel that verifiable fact is in fact a violation of neutrality, then maybe find some sources that contradict the ones already present, or - crazy idea - expand the article in other ways. My point of view is in fact neutral.
::::::And I will revert info that removes clearly cited information without a solid, policy-laden reason. Every time. If you think that an RfC or MedCab will be effective in addressing the points I've addressed above - aside from actually worrying about cited folk pointing at the Emperor's New Clothes - please feel free to do so. I haven't heard anything thus far that convinces me that we are wrong to note cited information that relates directly to the article's subject. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I really don't understand you. The content is well cited inside the body of the article and you are rejecting community consensus that it is [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] for the lead. You can either attempt to persuade the editors who stated their positions or open up an RfC or some other dispute resolution process. Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243170205&oldid=243163073][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243224831&oldid=243177636] is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) wlinks 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Seems like the question is whether or not that chunk of sentence is lead-worthy. Well, let's see, There's a lot of criticism in the article (may or may not be undue weight in itself). What is really of note is not so much whether or not the metadata is lead-worthy, but what the consensus on it being lead-worthy is. Right now, there's a relatively clear consensus that it is not, seeing as how Arcayne is the only one disputing it. (as a footnote, adding the cites in the lead to compliment it doesn't help or hurt the cause in any way, that's basically irrelevant) [[User:Wizardman|'''''Wizardman''''']] 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I am sorry you don't understand me, Jaak. Perhaps I was somehow unclear the first three times I said it: the Lead is not only an intro but a summary of the article. Noting the criticism in the lead is part of that summary. There are three parts of the criticism, and noting those three points briefly is ''not'' undue weight. Can someone please point out where cited info is irrelevant? Let's looks at this a different way: Macs make up 7-8% of the market. Might it be that the folk thinking the info is (insert cynical laughing here) are themselves OC users? I mean, it isn't "ganging up" on MS when what is being pointed out is actually accurate and verifiable. It is in fact part of multiple citations used for other information in the article.
::Seriously, file an RfC or MedCab. I think the only undue weight coming here isn't coming from me. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously I believe this is a clear case of undue weight here. The lead is supposed to open up what the reader will learn about in the latter article and be an independant summary of the article. Noting that MS have received critisism is enough here without going into specifics. This is mentioned in the critisism section and doesn't need to be repeated in the lead. I've reverted twice now, and this is clearly supported by the consensus of this section. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I completely disagree with this assessment, and feel a lot of the reverting out a white-washing by MS fans, but I also respect Postlethwaite's opinion. So, I will accede to the removal of all three of the criticisms being mentioned in the lead. Understand that this does not extend to purging the same from the criticism section. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm more than happy for it to be mentioned in the critisism section, my concern of undue weight comes from it being mentioned twice. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]''' 16:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As I noted before, the Lead is a summary of the article. The paragraph in the Lead notes two of the three points that were criticized; I thought it exceedingly odd (and at the time, quite suspect) that the bit showing intentional obfuscation was the one all the PC users wanted downplayed or removed. No one seemed to be upset over the two criticisms being mentioned twice. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=== "Mac Vs. PC" / "commercials" / "campaign" ===
{{resolved}}
I believe the word "campaign" already appears within the discussed sentense and that "Mac Vs. PC" appears in the other two paragraphs (Second para on '[[I'm_a_PC#Campaign|Campaign]]' subsection). [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please see my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27m_a_PC&diff=242835571&oldid=242833500 comment] above in regards to this. [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] [[User talk:Tiptoety|talk]] 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::As a compromise, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=242845390&oldid=242840298 removed] a lot of the redundancy, copyediting it to read a little better. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy we sorted this one out quickly. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 07:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As am I. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 12:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Order of reports within criticism ===
:''Clarification: the following is a discussion regarding the [[I'm_a_PC#Criticism]] subsection.'' [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see chronological order, which places Microsoft's response sandwiched between criticisms, as the proper way of handling criticism. In fact, it might be good to break down the section and add a "Microsoft response" sub-section. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Respectfully, I find it difficult to understand how you don't see the chronology. Had the cock-up never been discovered, MS would have never issued a press release, nor would they have endeavored to ''hide'' the fact that Macs were used. As MS had a limited response to the matter (likely to minimize the press about the mistake), I am of the opinion that an entire subsection would serve as undue weight and a little more POV - it isn't our job to save MS from itself. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used.
::It starts with the unencyclopedic "As noted earlier" in the 3rd paragraph, moves on to an unclear order of statements and an inflated level of importance given to the scrubbing of metadata:
::Order of metadata issue: discovery, discovery maker+detail, discovery ratified+detail, microsoft fixing it, microsoft press release, John Paczkowski's "Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered", Tim Beyers' "achieved its goals", Jack Loftus' "if Apple were smart", Zach Epstein's "the irony of the discovery is detrimental".
::I believe this issue should be narrowed down a bit (as 3 paragraphs is just too much volume) as well as organized into a ''criticism, response'' type of order with a possible short neutral analysis at the end. Currently, the repetition of issues just hammers in the point rather than let the story tell itself. If there is agreement, I'd agree to attempt a re-write or see such a rewrite being made. (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=242535965#Criticism previous rewrite] was smaller than current suggestions)
::As a side note, I'm not sure as to why this part of the story is emphasized over the 'Apple sympathizers' part of criticisms which, IMHO should appear first.
::Hope this clarifies my perspective, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Allow me to illuminate, Jaak, before offering suggestions. The 'as noted earlier' bit refers to its initial mentioning in the Lead, and I am not really sure where that sort of thing is prohibited within Wikipedia, but it is largely used in normal encyclopedic articles.
:::And your chronology seems a bit wonky: ad campaign, release of press images; discovery of image detail, image creator ratified by notable sources, MS acknowledging the image creator, MS removing the detail from the images.
:::Now, I don't mind trimming down the section to three paragraphs or two subsections, as that is mostly what is called for, unless MS does something else, like set fire of Apple's Cupertino offices or hold their hands over their ears, squeeze their eyes shut and repeat over and over that Apple doesn't exist 'coz they can't see them. Oh wait, that's what they tried to do here. ;)
:::As I noted in other sections, Apple isn't being given any preference here, but MS isn't either. If Apple released commercials that expounded on their spreadsheet or database abilities, and it was subsequently revealed that not only was the work created on Excel or Access, but that Apple then tried to ''conceal'' that fact, both facts would be notable. Seeing that Macs make up 7-8% of the market, I perhaps I should be more surprised that more folk haven't shown up to downplay the concealment. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

=== DYK comment ===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=242708340&oldid=242700840 This comment] was placed in DYK after Jaak's large-scale edits were reverted. As the stated concern - that of npov - isn't a consideration of the DYK:

<blockquote>
:''Did You Know''... that the recent series of "I'm a PC" advertisements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system were created using Apple Macintosh computers?
</blockquote>

The DYK was approved and ready to roll. When Jaak posted there, he did so with the ''full'' understanding that the DYK would be put into a holding pattern. As it seems to be an admitted reprisal for being reverted, he should strike his comments. It's a [[WP:POINT]] behavior that shouldn't have happened, as it delays opening the article to a wider audience of editors who might contribute. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 
At Jaak's request, I've removed the offending post to WP:3O, though I am not sure why...Anyhoo, the DYK was approved and should be up in a day or so, bringing new editors who can help expand the article. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:There is no "reprisal" here and the opening of a WQA seems like you're more interested in drama than anything else. Can you please [[WP:NAM|calm down]]? [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC) clarify. 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::WQA is a step along the DR process, as you seemed unwilling to respond to polite and then explicit requests to explain how your personal opinions were relevant to the DYK. DR seemed the appropriate next step, and I wasn't planning on seeking a block for disruption, which I could have easily done. You failed to address concerns I expressed about the non-sequitur nature of its placement in the DYK, and you specifically noted that you wanted to halt the nom until your ''unrelated'' concerns were addressed. It is only noted here because it affects the DYK, which tends to expand editor input significantly (the purpose of DYK), and you seemed content to ignore any inquiry into it. The comment at DYK immediately followed you being reverted in the article. It was a cheap shot, and I called you on it. Maybe don't perpetrate that sort of nonsense, and you won't get called on it. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: And apparently, Jaak wants to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=next&oldid=243303923 take credit] for the DYK he not only didn't write, but tried to interfere with. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::{{resolved|Jaakabou was forced to remove the claim}} - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Next steps ==

Having observed the talk and edits, I am withdrawing from attempting to help with this dispute. I suggest that the two of you--both of whom are acting in good faith to improve the project--visit MedCab to resolve this. [[User:PrinceOfCanada|Prince of Canada]][[User talk:PrinceOfCanada#top| t]] | [[Special:Contributions/PrinceOfCanada|c]] 08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. I'm bewildered as to how such a minor thing (yes, it is MINOR) can turn into such a huge discussion! In Dutch (forgive me the impolite words), we call this 'ant fucking'. --[[User:Piz d'Es-Cha|Piz d'Es-Cha]] ([[User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha|talk]]) 07:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I consider it something of a mior issue as well. It happened, so perhaps we are served by not pretending it didn't happen. Wait, which ant-fuckery are we speaking of? ;) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 13:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of reports within criticism... ==

I'm a bit unhappy with the current order and importance levels given to each issue as well as the language used (see [[#Order_of_reports_within_criticism]]). However, I am not in the state of mind to rewrite it again so I throw my glove in for others to pick it up. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Um, Arcayne... ==

"Cited information will NEVER be removed from the article, esp. when removing it represents a pov edit"

This is a vast misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. What Jaakobou did was remove a piece of information ''from the lead''. It still exists in the Criticism section, and is still cited.

By your logic, I could copy and paste the entire article four times into the lead and no one would be able to remove it because it's cited. Just as removing it represents a "POV edit", I challenge that your efforts to keep it there is a POV edit. Particularly when the talk page consensus seems to be going against you.

If this low-grade edit war continues, I'll protect the page [on the wrong version] and force y'all to go to medcab, because your attitude here is way off. This is not your article, and you alone do not get to decide what is POV and what stays. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:Firstly, maybe I am mistaken, Golbez, but the Lead is a SUMMARY of the article, right? Third paragraph discusses and summarizes the criticism section. As there are only three parts of the criticism, it seems odd not to briefly touch on them. I call it POV as it is clear that Jaak seems to think that ''even mentioning'' the bit anywhere in the article is undue weight. [[WP:V|Cited]] info from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] doesn't get tossed because someone thinks pointing to MS's mistakes is unfair. Jaak suggested filing an RfC; well, why doesn't he do so? I will certainly participate. Cited info should stay. I guess I don't get why people want to blow off [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Maybe someone could explain it to me? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::That doesn't mean that every cited fact gets a place in the intro, nor does it mean that no one can remove a cited fact once it is in the article, as your edit summary seemed to imply. My exception was mostly with your edit summary, which as I said, seemed to betray a misunderstanding of how we work here. Also, please don't tell an established editor something will "NEVER" happen, it's not polite. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my edit summary was a bit off-putting - it was a response to Jaak removing repeatedly the same information, arguing that we were unduly piling on WP. Wrong edit-summary? I'll grant you that. Also wrong is the idea that IAR allows us to unduly remove an appropriate summary of criticism from the Lead (you know, the summary of the article) simply because more MS editors are editing. That may not be the case, but it certainly seems that way. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)`

== Was this article written by fans of Macintosh? Too much criticism compared to other context. ==

The first thing I noticed while reading this article was the extended criticism against Microsoft. Unlike the [[Get a Mac]] article, whose [[I'm a Mac#Criticisms|Criticisms]] section includes only four sentences, more than half of this article is filled with criticisms in detail.

I'm not saying that those criticisms are wrong or that we should delete the criticisms. What I'm suggesting here is that we should add more lines explaining more about ''' the ad itself.''' Maybe we can add more lines about how Microsoft chose the people in the ad, such as the scuba diver, and a kid playing soccer, how long they'd planned for this ad, etc. -- <big>'''[[User:Chulk90|Chul.Kwon]]'''/'''[[User talk:Chulk90|discuss]]'''/'''[[Special:Contributions/Chulk90|contributions]]'''</big> 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:See [[#Order of reports within criticism...]] - [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::If you don't mind a random comment while passing through, I agree wholly with the above user. This article is, honestly, breathtakingly silly. It reads very much like a few Apple fanatics, stung by the commercials, coming to Wikipedia chanting "Must...Attack...Microsoft..." The entire Criticism should be rewritten to no more than one short paragraph of perhaps 2 to 3 brief sentences (but even if it were deleted entirely, the article would still be greatly improved.) The alleged controversy it documents is not important and far from encyclopedic; it can be hashed out on blogs and boards where Apple and PC enthusiasts tiresomely bash each other for sport. But please, leave the computer holy wars out of Wikipedia people. Here in the real world, it's nowhere near as important as you believe it to be. [[Special:Contributions/72.73.211.16|72.73.211.16]] ([[User talk:72.73.211.16|talk]]) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I totally agree. We have several quotes saying "Omigod it's so ironic that this ad was created on a Mac!" One makes the point, and Microsoft's response is just saying what anyone familiar with the ad business knows (An interesting inversion of this ad would have been to show people at an ad agency or graphic design firm — places where one normally sees almost all Macs — doing really fantastic things with creative software on PCs (Hey Miscrosoft, if you're reading this, I ''would'' be willing to release the rights to that idea for a small sum of money, and a Vista-compatible Gateway).Anyway, I will tag this for undue weight. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Er, excuse me, but I am the one who wrote the f****** thing, so maybe suggesting motives that are a "tad" bad faith is supposed to get me to open a literary (and purely metaphorical) keg of whupass on y'alll.
:However, maybe instead, you could add just a bit more good faith? Even better - maybe you could actually add more citations to the article talking about the ad. The criticism is actually one of the few things that make the ad campaign interesting at all (aside from understanding how ad campaigns work). The comment by the anon can be easily ignored, but Dan makes the case that the irony is the only thing notable about the criticism. I can see how he might miss the additional irony of using noted Apple users (and data-scrubbing Apple books and logos out of the shots where they say "I'm a PC"), or the issuing of the statement ''before'' MS tries to pretend the images were never made on a Mac. Business subterfuge is ass-clownery, and since we have quite a few reliable sources noting it as well, it seems - dare I say it? - pov to seek to pooh-pooh the criticism? Is someone here working for Gates? lol - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Responded on your talk page. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it, Daniel. Thanks :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section & recent discussion ==

I've made some changes to the criticism section that I hope we can discuss.

* I removed the two paragraphs reintroducing the subject - it seems to unnecessarily add to the length of the section and the article.
* I commented out a paragraph that appears to be unnecessary to the criticism section. It makes sense to describe the criticism and describe Microsofts response - the particular paragraph I removed falls more into "background noise" than either category.

Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. A more humble and collegiate approach would probably get you better results - as it is, the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah. Looking over my responses, I can see how my misplacing my temper wasn't helping matters, and the crap being foisted by another user to get their way served to distract me from seeking my temper sooner. ''Mea culpa''.
:I don't think I am anything approaching the sole arbiter of content. I know for a fact there is gray area 'wiggle room'. Usually, I am a tiger about consensus and discussion - frankly, what initially got my back up was another user's massive edits made ''sans'' discussion, and thereafter only cursory discussion. It didn't help matters when the sole argument for removing some of the info were variations of the 'i don't like it' non-excuse.
:While I think I have been pretty open to a lot of the changes, I should have been more accommodating of info and opinion that, though uncited, might have been made/expressed in good faith.
:Sorry for being a bit of an ogre. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I really don't want to run up this argument again, but the reasoning which was supported by the community was mostly [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Respectfully, the reasoning initially was your personal impression that the article was somehow manhandling MS by pointing to its multiple mistakes. But no, there's no need to continue the discussion. Maybe let it go now. :) - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I believe you somehow misread my reasoning for cleaning up the lead. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, I don't believe I did, but if I had, your actions w/the related DYK stuff would have served to reinforce that opinion. Now, in the interest of letting your mistake fall by the wayside, might we move on to something more specific to the article now? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Arcayne,
::::::If you insist that I made an error in explaining my concerns - then I'm willing to take it at that and move one. However, I believe that your approach has not been working so well for you in the past couple of months so I do encourage you to [[WP:CALM|try something different]].
::::::Cordially, [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for the advice. You might be surprised to find tha tI actually tend to stay pretty cool, and usually get less patient when people think the rules don't apply to them. Maybe, before you point out various essays to me, you could brush up on policy and guidelines a little bit better. A lot of our frciton could have easily been avoided had you simply followed BRD. Or read [[WP:DISRUPT]] or even [[WP:DYK]]. That said, people with shorter block logs than present company have already advised me to cool down, and I have. Maybe you don't need to respond to the post, and it will all settle down. If its a ''last word' thing going on, then fine. Again, maybe let it go, and move on? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Actor vs actress ==

I keep noting that folk keep adding 'actress' to Eva Longoria-Parker instead of the more appropriate 'actor'. Actor is gender neutral, and preferred both within the entertainment industry and by the actors themselves. This was initially addressed in point #7 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I%27m_a_PC#Citations here]. Might we discuss the matter here? - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Either actor or actress is fine with me. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed someone who changed it and I'm not yet certain on why we'd keep her gender unspecified. It's not that I care so much, just that I don't undesrtand the reasoning to write 'actor' when we know it's a female. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Btw Avruch, some nice work with your latest re-write. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, to be encyclopedic? I think the name alone would denote gender, and actor is her job description. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure you are correct. Looking up other articles on Wikipedia I see 'actress' rather than 'actor' as the word next to female movie/television performers. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think "actor" is often gender-neutral these days and it certainly isn't important enough to argue over. One of those things like American vs. British English - might as well leave it the way it was written, to avoid the unnecessary argument. [[User:Avruch|Avruch]][[User talk:Avruch| T ]] 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you. [[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]'' 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Large-scale edits ==

I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&diff=243591279&oldid=243567649 undone] a lot of edits by an anon user, while the edits seem valid on their face, there appears to be something of a double standard occurring. Citations, statements, etc. referring to Apple were systematically removed, while expansion occurred that defended the MS campaign - almost as if to downplay that the Mac work was done on Macs. As part of BRD, I've suggested to the anon (though their apparent knowledge at WP suggests a normal user working through an anon) that (s)he come on over and discuss the edits here - the 'D" in BRD. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Some of the edits undone (by section):
:'''Lead'''
*removal of info noting that the campaign was meant to address the Mac Vs PC campaign and vamping up perception of its Vista OS.
*removal of the Seinfeld/Gates info noting the lack of success of that campaign
*removal of any mention of the Apple users featured in the MS ads
:'''Campaign'''
* removal/shifting of information which reduces readability
:'''Criticism'''
*removal of various sources, deemed by the anon to be useless, irrelevant, blogs or unnecessary

I kinda think some of these two dozen edits over the course of two hours needs some discussion. - [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:The anon user appears to not be receiving the message regarding discussing his edits, despite usertalk page messages ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=prev&oldid=243590723 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=243649868&oldid=243590723 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.224.68.237&diff=next&oldid=243649868 3]). That might be a valid defense (being aware of messages), as I once heard that anon IP accounts don't know when they get messages in their usertalk space (can someone confirm that for me?).
:Either way, that wouldn't mean they could miss messages here in article discussion. While the edits appear to be in good faith, they are substantially altering the article without any input, and the anon is already at 3RR for the day. Thoughts? 0 [[User:Arcayne|'''Arcayne''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|('''cast a spell''')]] 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::When I started looking at the article history, I find myself agreeing with this IP. Have a look through each of his changes; a lot of them actually improved the article, and he/she removed several blogs used as sources; as I see it this is a valid thing to do, as is the removal of claims such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%27m_a_PC&oldid=243542595 this]; where the article claimed that
::*"and Longoria Parker personally uses a [[MacBook Pro]]", based on an image found of her holding one. This is from a fansite, and might for all we know have been taken out of context. She might even be holding the Mac for the person in front of her for all we know. Not a terribly reliable source in my opinion.
::*"Chopra uses one as well, and Williams uses a Macintosh in his recording studio."
::*As for man one; the only "evidence" for him using a Mac, appears to be the image information from images on his website. But how do we know that he is the one who actually made that site? For all we know, he might be using a third party for this.
::*Tony Parker is according to the source a macuser just because he appeared at a Mac expo.
::As far as I can see, this is all based on assumptions made by a blog - hardly the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia needs. As for the list you made of edits undone: The removal of blogs as a source is not a problem. If the blogs are linking to reliable sources, use them instead. Blogs are typically the opinion of a single person, and is unlikely to be objective. As for other sources, feel free to reinsert sources removed sources if you feel that they are still relevant. As for the original sources (original being as in your last version before the anon started editing); out of the 14, only Computerworld, Sydney Morning Herald and Gawker is mentioning that the campaign is to change the public perception of Vista. Two of these do not mention where they have that information from, and the third appears to be a blog. Sure, the campaign is to push Vista, and try to sell more copies, but how do we know that this is due to the current public perception without having a proper source that says so? As for the Seinfeld campaign, some sources such as Betanews speculate if this was the result of a failed campaign, or as according to Microsoft, part of the plan (which was mentioned by several other sources, such as [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115019 Computerworld]).
::As for the point about readability; this is to an extent a subjective thing. I liked some of the changes myself, if you disagree, please list specific edits rather than just writing "removal/shifting of information which reduces readability". [[User:Bjelleklang|Bjelleklang]] - [[User_talk:Bjelleklang|talk]] 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Bjelleklang, the ad campaign is designed to assist and support "branding" as opposed to "product" and is meant to put a positive spin on the PC as differentiated from the Mac. For a current example to support your comment here, ''"Sure, the campaign is to push Vista,"'' please look at the concurrent advertising campaign specifically designed to push Vista here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment]. Although we can easily synthesize the obvious, that MS wants to push their Flagship product which is reported to be being received poorly, the campaign itself - which is what the Wiki entry discusses, makes no mention of Vista and simply purports to support the PC. Perhaps we could create a good excuse and shoehorn the Vista criticism in by obliquely mentioning the [[Mojave Experiment]] as another current MS campaign? I'm not necessarily opposed to adding it, but I don't necessarily think it's relevant to an entry about the specific ad campaign either.[[Special:Contributions/76.224.68.237|76.224.68.237]] ([[User talk:76.224.68.237|talk]]) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Greenwich Village townhouse explosion

2008-10-07T15:17:26Z

76.224.68.237: Added Controversey section to contain speculation about possible cause of blast

{{Infobox civilian attack
|title = Accidental detonation in Greenwich Village townhouse
|image = FDNY responds to Weatherman townhouse explosion.jpg
|caption = Firefighters contain blaze fed by broken gas lines caused by explosion
|location = Subbasement furnace room at 18 West 11th Street [[New York City]]
|date = [[March 6]], [[1970]]
|time =
|timezone =
|type =
|fatalities = 3 members of the [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]]: [[Theodore Gold]], age 22 [[Diana Oughton]], 28 [[Terry Robbins]], 22
|perps =
|weapons = Dynamite, during bomb assembly
}}

The '''Greenwich Village townhouse explosion''' was the premature detonation of a bomb as it was being assembled by members of the American "urban guerilla" organization, [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]] (later rechristened the Weather Underground), in the basement of a [[townhouse]] at 18 West 11th Street in New York City's [[Greenwich Village]]. The three persons nearest the bomb were killed, two others in the house were slightly injured, and the four story townhouse was reduced to rubble and caught fire.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-07"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E14FF3C5A157493C5A91788D85F448785F9
| title= Townhouse Razed By Blast and Fire; Man's Body Found
| date= [[1970-03-07]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> Shortly before noon on Friday, [[March 6]], [[1970]], people in the townhouse were assembling [[anti-personnel weapon]]s armed with roofing nails and packed with dynamite. Years later, former members of the organization who had not been at the scene advanced differing (but not incompatible) claims as to the plans for use of the bombs. Thus, according to [[Mark Rudd]], the plan was to set them off that evening at a dance for noncommissioned officers at the [[Fort Dix|Fort Dix, New Jersey]] Army base.<ref name= "name">{{cite web
| url= http://www.markrudd.com/Homepage/Harpers%20piece.htm
| title=The Kids are All Right
| last= Rudd
| first= Mark
|authorlink=Mark Rudd
| quote=
| accessdate= 2008-08-03}}</ref> According to a detractor, "former members" have reported that some of the bombs were destined for the Fort Dix dance and others for Butler Library at [[Columbia University]].<ref name=djwnyt82403>{{cite news |first=Daniel |last=Wakin |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Quieter Lives for 60's Militants, but Intensity of Beliefs Hasn't Faded |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E4DE1539F937A1575BC0A9659C8B63 |quote=|publisher=[[New York Times]] |date=[[August 24]], [[2003]] |accessdate=2008-06-07 }}</ref>

==Immediate aftermath==
Killed by the blast were [[Ted Gold|Theodore Gold]], [[Diana Oughton]], and [[Terry Robbins]]. Surviving in a stunned and bleeding state were Weatherman members [[Kathy Boudin]] and [[Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson|Cathlyn Wilkerson]], who were upstairs at the moment of the blast. The two survivors were led out from the burning structure by a police officer and the off-duty New York City Housing Authority patrolman who had entered in search of survivors.<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= The House On West 11th Street. |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E4DB1638F936A35750C0A9669C8B63 |quote=|publisher=[[New York Times]] |date=[[March 5]], [[2000]] |accessdate=2008-04-22 }}</ref> The rescuers were treated at [[Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Center|St. Vincent's Hospital]] for smoke inhalation.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-07"/>

Boudin and Wilkerson disappeared before they could be questioned. They had been free on bail on assault charges stemming from the [[Days of Rage]] riots in Chicago.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/> A neighbor who rendered aid after the blast described them as "dazed and trembling" as they were led "staggering" from the wreckage, one clad only in blue jeans and the other naked. The neighbor brought them to her house, where they showered, borrowed some clothing and told a housekeeper they were going to a local drugstore, then got into a taxi and disappeared.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12wager"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C15FD3C5A157493C0A81788D85F448785F9
| title= Neighbor Tells of Aiding 2 'Dazed' Young Women
| date= [[1970-03-12]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-06 }}</ref><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-11"/>

The building was owned by Wilkerson's father, a radio-station executive.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A17FD3C5A157493C0A81788D85F448785F9
| title= Miss Wilkerson's Parents Make Plea For Her to Clarify Toll in Bombing
| date= [[1970-03-12]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> As the search for bodies continued days after the explosion, Wilkerson's parents made a televised appeal to their missing daughter to avoid needlessly risking the lives of searchers. They asked her to "let us know how many more people, if any, are still left in the ruins of our home", saying "more lives would be needlessly lost and only you have the key".<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/>

==Investigation==
The blast was initially thought to be a series of natural gas explosions, but investigators quickly concluded from the extent of the damage that dynamite or some other powerful explosive was the cause. Gas lines broken by the blast fed an ensuing fire.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/> According to the police investigator in charge, "The people in the house were obviously putting together the component parts of a bomb and they did something wrong."<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-11"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C17FC3C5A157493C3A81788D85F448785F9
| title= Bombs, Dynamite and Woman's Body Found in Ruins of 11th St. Townhouse
| date= [[1970-03-11]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref>

An initial search turned up a 1916 37-mm. [[anti-tank warfare|antitank]] [[shell (projectile)|shell]].<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-10"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30710F83D5C1B7493C2A81788D85F448785F9
| title= 1916 Antitank Shell Is Found In Rubble of 'Village' Building
| date= [[1970-03-10]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> In the following days, a brick-by-brick search of the rubble uncovered 57 sticks of [[dynamite]], four {{convert|12|in|mm|sing=on}} [[pipe bomb]]s packed with dynamite, and 30 [[blasting cap]]s. The pipe bombs and several eight-stick packages of dynamite had [[fuse (explosives)|fuses]] already attached. Also found were [[timer|timing devices]] rigged from alarm clocks, maps of the tunnel network underneath [[Columbia University]], and literature of the political protest organization, [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)]], from which the [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]] organization had split off.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-11"/><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-10"/> Police described the building as a "bomb factory", and said that at the time of the explosion dynamite was apparently being wrapped in tape with nails embedded to act as [[shrapnel]].<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/><ref name= "NYT_1970-03-16"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10912FC355E1A718DDDAF0994DB405B808BF1D3
| title= More Body Parts Discovered In Debris of Blast on 11th Street
| date= [[1970-03-16]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-10 }}</ref>

The crime scene was gory. It took nine days of collecting body parts to determine how many persons had died in the blast. Fingerprint records were required to identify the corpses of [[Ted Gold|Theodore Gold]], a leader of the 1968 [[Columbia University protests of 1968|Columbia University student protests]], and [[Diana Oughton]], the organizer of the 1969 SDS national convention. <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-09"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1091FF6345C117688DDA00894DB405B808BF1D3
| title= 'Village' Fire Victim Identified as Leader of '68 Columbia Strike
| date= [[1970-03-09]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-09 }}</ref> <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-18"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5091FF83C5A157493CAA81788D85F448785F9
| title= 2d Victim in Blast Is Identified Here
| date= [[1970-03-18]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-10 }}</ref> <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-15"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40915F73A55107A93C7A81788D85F448785F9
| title= 3d Blast Victim Is Found In Ruins of Townhouse
| date= [[1970-03-15]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-06 }}</ref> <ref name= "NYT_1970-03-16"/> As to the identity of the third corpse, rumors circulated in radical circles that it was that of [[Terry Robbins]], a leader of the 1968 [[Kent State University]] student rebellion and a founder of the Weathermen, who would be indicted the following month along with 11 others for organizing and inciting riots during the "Days of Rage".<ref name= "NYT_1970-04-03"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D11FB385B107B93C1A9178FD85F448785F9
| title= 12 S.D.S. Militants Indicted in Chicago
| date= [[1970-04-03]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| quote= A Federal grand jury indicted 12 leaders of the Weathermen today on charges of conspiracy and violation of the Federal antiriot act.
| accessdate= 2007-12-10 }}</ref> That May, this rumor was confirmed in a communique purportedly issued by the Weathermen. The message was a "declaration of war" by the organization which warned that it would "attack a symbol or institution of American injustice" within the next two weeks. This communique named Robbins as the third body and described Gold, Oughton, and Robbins as revolutionaries "no longer on the move".<ref name= "NYT_1970-05-25"> {{ cite news
| url= http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D17FF3B5A157493C7AB178ED85F448785F9
| title= A Radical 'Declaration' Warns Of an Attack by Weathermen
| date= [[1970-05-25]]
| publisher= [[The New York Times]]
| accessdate= 2007-12-09 }}</ref>

==The fate of the survivors==
Neighbors positively identified Wilkerson as one of the two women who had been led out from the wreckage. Boudin was not positively identified as the second survivor until some weeks later.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12wager"/> Both women were charged with illegal possession of dynamite in the townhouse blast. They forfeited their bail on the above mentioned Chicago assault charges by failing to appear in Chicago for trial ten days later.<ref name= "NYT_1970-03-12"/> The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) placed them on its [[FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives|Ten Most Wanted Fugitives]] list, but they succeeded in avoiding capture for a decade. Wilkerson surrendered in 1980. Boudin was apprehended in 1981 for her role in the [[Brinks robbery (1981)|Brink's armored car robbery]].

==The house==
The townhouse at 18 West 11th Street was originally built in 1845. In the 1920s it belonged to [[Charles E. Merrill]], cofounder of [[Merrill Lynch]], who lived there with his family until 1931.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chattarji|first=Subarno |title=Memories of a Lost War: American Poetic Responses to the Vietnam War|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|date=2001|pages=50|isbn=0199247110}}</ref> The bombing is lamented in a poem by Merrill's son, the poet [[James Merrill]], titled with the address of the house: "Shards of a blackened witness still in place. / The charred ice-sculpture garden / Beams fell upon. . . ."<ref>"18 West 11th Street." {{cite book|last=Merrill|first=James|title=Collected Poems|editor=J. D. McClatchy and Stephen Yenser|publisher=Knopf|location=new York|date=2002|pages=316|isbn=037570941X}}</ref>

==Controversy==

Ayers has raised the possibility that Oughton may have intentionally detonated the explosion, it has ben reported that a vicious argument occurred during all of the previous day and night in which Boudin favored using antipersonnel bombs, and that Oughton had misgivings.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0D6103BF933A0575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== Eternal links ==
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17534987#17478269 Excerpt: ''Flying Close to the Sun,'' by Cathy Wilkerson]

[[Category:Weather Underground]]
[[Category:Opposition to the Vietnam War]]
[[Category:History of New York City]]
[[Category:Accidental explosion disasters in the United States]]
[[Category:1970 in the United States]]
[[Category:Greenwich Village]]

Diana Oughton

2008-10-07T15:14:16Z

76.224.68.237: /* The Townhouse Explosion */ added history of speculation in which Oughton detonated the explosion intentionally

{{Infobox person
|name=Diana Oughton
|image=Diana Oughton.jpg | imagesize = 100px
|birth_date=[[January 26]], [[1942]]
|birth_place=[[Chicago, Illinois]], [[United States of America|USA]]
|death_date=[[March 6]], [[1970]]
|death_place=[[Greenwich Village]], [[New York]], [[United States of America|USA]]
|known_for=Student Activist Teacher at Children's Community School in Ann Arbor, Michigan Member of Students for a Democratic Society Member of the Jesse James Gang Member of Weathermen Greenwich Village, New York Townhouse Explosion 1970}}
'''Diana Oughton''' ([[January 26]] [[1942]] - [[March 6]] [[1970]]) was a member of the 1960s radical group [[Weatherman (organization)|The Weathermen]]. Diana Oughton received her B.A. from [[Bryn Mawr]] and after graduating went to [[Guatemala]] with the [[Voluntary International Service Assigments|VISA]] program to work with young adults and older people.<ref>FBI files part 2 page 3</ref> After returning she worked at the Children's Community School in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]] while getting her Master's degree at the [[University of Michigan]]. She became very active in [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society]], eventually becoming a full-time organizer and member of the [[Jesse James Gang]].<ref>Powers 87</ref> With the split of SDS in 1969, she joined the Weathermen.

Oughton died in an explosion on March 6, 1970, in the [[Greenwich Village townhouse explosion]] in
[[New York City]], when a bomb she was constructing with [[Terry Robbins]] accidentally detonated, destroying the building and killing her, Robbins, and [[Ted Gold]].<ref>Powers, 183</ref>

==Early Life and Education==
Oughton was born on January 26, 1942 in Chicago, Illinois. She grew up in [[Dwight, Illinois]] as a member of a wealthy family who had been prominent in the town for decades. Her mother was Jane Boyce Oughton, her father was James Oughton Jr, vice president of the family bank, and owner of a successful restaurant.<ref>Powers 11</ref> One of Diana’s great-grandfathers was the founder of Dwight’s [[Keeley Institute]] for alcoholics, and another great-grandfather founded the [[Boy Scouts of America]].<ref>Powers, 10-11 </ref>

Diana Oughton left Dwight at age 14 to finish school at the [[Madeira School]] in Virginia; after graduating, she entered [[Bryn Mawr College|Bryn Mawr]] in 1959 as a German language major. When she was 19, Oughton went to Germany to spend her junior year at the [[University of Munich]], when she rented a room from the former rector of the university, Gerhard Weber, and his wife. After her study abroad, she returned to Bryn Mawr for her senior year in 1962 and began to tutor black children in the ghettos of Philadelphia.<ref>FBI files part 2 page 3</ref>

==Guatemala==
After receiving her B.A. degree from Bryn Mawr in 1963, Diana spent two years in Guatemala with the VISA program. Oughton was assigned to [[Chichicastenango]], at that time an isolated Indian market town. While there, Oughton worked with young adults and older people. Oughton lived like the Indians, in a small house with a dirt floor and a little outhouse.<ref>Ayers, 95</ref>

According to Thomas Powers, who wrote the family-authorized biography ''Diana: the making of a terrorist'', the more Diana learned about the hard life of rural Guatemala, the more she reflected on the affluence of the United States. In Chichicastenango, Americans seemed an alien presence, the fact of their wealth was almost an insult to the impoverished Indians. In her mind, a confusion emerged that lasted the rest of her life: she had rejected affluence (at first almost unconsciously) to work among the poor, but poverty, clearly, was nothing to be envied. She hated poverty, but she hated affluence, too.<ref>Powers, 35</ref>

Those who knew Diana Oughton recognized this period as the major turning point in her life; according to Powers, Diana came to feel something close to a sense of shame at being an American.<ref>Powers, 37</ref> In ''Fugitive Days'', [[Bill Ayers]] writes that Diana Oughton "had had an abundance of experience in Guatemala, a torrent, almost more than she could endure. She now sometimes suffered the full flood of her experiences".<ref>Ayers, 94</ref> Oughton became much more aware of the U.S. impact on foreign countries, and she did not return to Philadelphia the same Midwest Republican.

==Children’s Community School==
In 1966, Diana Oughton left Philadelphia for [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]] to enroll in the [[University of Michigan]] Graduate School of Education, seeking her Master’s degree in teaching. While there, she began to work at the Children’s Community School (CCS), a project founded by a group of students and based on the [[Summerhill]] method of education. Children were allowed to do what they liked when they liked, on the premise that both teaching and learning were most successful when most spontaneous.<ref>Powers, 59</ref> The School also tried to establish complete equality between white and black students and to involve parents in the running of the school, so that it might be a community in the largest sense of the word.<ref>Powers, 61</ref>

Oughton dedicated herself to the school and teaching and designed a fund-raising button that read, CHILDREN ARE ONLY NEWER PEOPLE.<ref>Powers, 69</ref> It was at CCS that Diana Oughton met Bill Ayers. The two fell in love and soon began living together. In 1968, when the school ran into severe problems and lost its funding, Oughton and Ayers sought to become active elsewhere in the community. <ref>FBI files part 2 page 3</ref>

==SDS and The Jesse James Gang==
Ayers and Oughton were involved with [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS) while working at CCS, but it was not until after the closure of the school that they became very involved as full-time organizers. In March 1968, Oughton helped create a women’s liberation group at a time when the issue was just beginning to emerge among radicals.<ref>Powers 73</ref> The group met every week or so, wherever it could find room. Most of the talk seemed to center on the subordinate role of women in the radical movement and on the sexual oppression of women by the “macho” tendency of males to regard sex as conquest. <ref>Powers, 73</ref>

In 1968, Oughton and Ayers became part of the [[Jesse James Gang]],<ref>Powers, 87</ref>, which replaced the University of Michigan SDS chapter. The Gang insisted that action was the only thing likely to create a situation in which radical solutions to American problems would be considered.<ref>Powers, 89</ref> The Gang offered a tight, validating community within which members could express their rage and frustration about the [[status quo]], and their empathy for suffering.<ref>Wilkerson, 226</ref>

==Weathermen==
With the split of SDS in 1969, Oughton and Ayers joined the [[Weatherman (organization)|Weathermen]]. At this time, protests became more violent and radical than they had been in SDS. Part of this move towards greater violence was seen during the "[[Days of Rage]]" in Chicago, taking place on October 8-11 of 1969. One purpose of the "Days of Rage" was to create an image of strength and determination that would win converts to revolutionary violence.<ref>Powers, 135</ref> Diana Oughton was one of the people arrested in October of 1969 in Chicago; her bail was set at $5,000, which her father came up from Dwight to pay. After she was released, Mr. Oughton dropped his daughter off at a church where she was meeting up with other Weathermen; shortly afterwards, police raided the church and arrested 43 members of the group. Oughton managed to escape by jumping out of a window.<ref>Powers 156</ref>

After the "Days of Rage", the group became increasingly more violent. In her book ''Flying Close to the Sun'', former [[Weatherman (organization)|Weatherman]] member [[Cathy Wilkerson]] describes meeting up with [[Terry Robbins]], also a member of the Jesse James Gang, who told her about a small, semi-clandestine group in New York to which he belonged. He explained briefly that the group had already been active: a firebomb had been thrown at the home of Judge Murtagh, then presiding over the trial of the [[Panther 21]].<ref>Wilkerson, 324</ref> When Wilkerson joined the collective, the members were in need of a place to stay. Her father had a townhouse in New York but would be away for a couple of weeks, and Terry Robbins wondered whether Wilkerson could get the keys.<ref>Wilkerson, 332</ref> She did so, and the group arrived at 18 West 11th Street to figure out their next move.

[[Jonah Raskin]], whose wife [[Eleanor Raskin]] was part of the [[Weather Underground Organization]], and who was himself a courier for the Underground,<ref>Dohrn, 124</ref> recalls the last time he spoke with the members of the collective in New York: "I had talked to them not long before the townhouse blew up and they seemed to have lost touch with reality- and were incapable of making sensible decisions about almost everything."<ref>Dohrn, 126</ref>

==The Townhouse Explosion==
{{main|Greenwich Village townhouse explosion}}
On Monday, March 2, 1970, in Keene, New Hampshire, a Weatherman purchased two 50-pound cases of dynamite from the New England Explosives Corporation. Sometime that week, the dynamite was moved from Keene to [[Greenwich Village]], New York where it was taken to the house at 18 West Eleventh Street. Diana Oughton left Detroit and joined the group at the house. On Friday of the same week, Oughton and Terry Robbins were in the basement assembling a bomb when it accidentally detonated.<ref>Powers, 183</ref> Cathy Wilkerson, who was in the townhouse at the time, describes her experience during the explosion, "the idea that Terry and Diana were both in the subbasement overwhelmed everything else. As I forced my attention there and to them, my lungs expanded instantaneously to draw in air and dust so I could call out."<ref>Wilkerson, 346</ref>

Wilkerson and [[Kathy Boudin]], another Weatherman in the townhouse at the time, were the only two to escape. When they ran out into the street, someone asked if there was anyone else in the house. Thinking that [[Ted Gold]], the other Weatherman in the townhouse, had gone to the store, Wilkerson replied that no, there was no one left inside. She knew that Terry and Diana were gone.<ref>Wilkerson, 347</ref>

Four days after the explosion, detectives found some of Oughton’s remains near a workbench in the rubble-filled basement of the devastated townhouse. At the end of another week, a detective discovered the tip of the little finger from the right hand. A print taken by a police department expert was matched later that day with a set of Oughton’s prints in the Washington files of the F.B.I.<ref>FBI files, part 3 page 17</ref> The prints they had on file were from Oughton’s arrest in Chicago on October 9, 1969 during the Days of Rage.

It took four days to find Diana Oughton’s remains, not only because of the amount of destruction the bomb had caused -- the townhouse was destroyed -- but also because of the dynamite found in the wreckage. While searching through the rubble, detectives found four lead pipes, each 12 inches in diameter and packed with dynamite. The street was cleared, the bomb-removal truck was summoned, and the search continued with considerably greater caution. Before the day was over, detectives found four cartons containing 57 sticks of dynamite, 30 blasting caps, and some cheap alarm clocks with holes drilled in their faces for the attaching of wires.<ref>Powers, 3</ref> It was understood later that the bombs were to have been detonated at a non-commissioned officers' dance at [[Fort Dix]]. <ref>Wilkerson, 341</ref>

The doctor who examined Oughton’s remains said she had been standing within a foot or two of the bomb when it exploded. It may, in fact, have gone off in her hands.<ref>FBI files part 3 page 17</ref> Diana Oughton was buried at age 28 in Dwight, Illinois on Tuesday, March 24, 1970. Ayers has raised the possibility that Oughton may have intentionally detonated the explosion, it has ben reported that a vicious argument occured during all of the previous day and night in which Boudin favored using antipersonnel bombs, and that Oughton had misgivings.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0D6103BF933A0575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print]

When [[Brian Flanagan]] reflects on his time as part of the Weather Underground Organization, he has this to say: "I was regretful over about 5 percent of what we did." He added, "I think 95 percent of what we did was great, and we'd do it again." "And what was the 5 percent? The town house." When pressed, Flanagan said that he regretted "the deaths of the three Weathermen Ted Gold, Diana Oughton and Terry Robbins and the plan to bomb the dance at Fort Dix and the library at Columbia, which could have taken lives."<ref>Wakin</ref>

The Townhouse Explosion was the tragic and dramatic culmination of the grim political direction in which Weatherman had been headed.<ref>Berger, 130</ref> [[Laura Whitehorn]], former member of Weatherman, says, "We were out of touch with what was going on, and we lost sight of the fact that if you’re a revolutionary, the first thing you have to try to do is preserve human life."<ref>Berger, 130</ref>

==Diana after Death==
*A 1975 TV movie, "Katherine", starring Art Carney, Sissy Spacek, Henry Winkler, Julie Kavner, Jane Wyatt, tells the story of "Katherine Alman", who was from a wealthy Denver family, became socially active, served as a teacher of English in South America, then joined a radical "Collective" which had many similarities to the SDS and eventually the Weatherman. The "Collective" protested the Vietnam War, invaded a High School, Held a "War Council" and eventually split into peaceful and violent factions. The story ended with Katherine's death, due to the bombing of a government building that did not go as planned.

*[[James Merrill]] wrote a poem titled “18 West 11th Street“. Merrill had grown up in the townhouse that was sold to Cathy Wilkerson’s father, by whom it was owned at the time of the bombing.

*Richard M. Pearlstein wrote ''The Mind of the Political Terrorist'', in which he attempted to provide insight into the individual psychological dimensions of political terrorism.<ref>Crenshaw</ref> Diana Oughton is one of the individuals he uses as a case study.

*Paul Kantner sang about Diana in Sunfighter (1971), here are some of the lyrics:

How do you feel to shoot down your brother now 
And bury us in cages of cement and steel 
What do you see when you look at one another now 
Who do you see tell me how do you feel 

Sing a song for the children who are gone 
Sing a song for Diana 
Huntress of the moon and a lady of the Earth 
Weather woman Diana <ref>Kantner</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*Ayers, Bill. "Fugitive Days". Boston, Ma: Beacon Press, 2001.
*Berger, Dan. "Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity". Oakland, Ca: AK Press, 2006.
*Crenshaw, Martha, Reviewed Work(s): The Mind of the Political Terrorist by Richard M. Pearlstein Political Psychology > Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 169-171
*Dohrn, Bernardine, Ayers, Bill, and Jones, Jeff, editors. "Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiqués of the Weather Underground", 1970-1974. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006.
*''Double Feature - The Boy in the Plastic Bubble - Katherine #03877'' (PC Treasures, Inc. 2006, 2765 Metamora Rd. Oxford, MI 48371) [Note: 1975 Fictionalized TV Movie "Based on a True Story" - Written and Directed by Jeremy Kagan. The movie mixes drama with documentary style commentaries, and authentic audio/video footage of the period.]
*F.B.I. files. http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/oughton_diana.htm
*Kantner, Paul. “Diana.” Sunfighter (1971). Grunt Label. http://www.lyrics007.com/Paul%20Kantner%20Lyrics/Diana%20Lyrics.html
*Powers, Thomas. "Diana: the making of a terrorist". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971.
*Wakin, Daniel J. International Herald Tribune Paris. Aug 28, 2003: 4.
*Wilkerson, Cathy. "Flying too Close to the Sun". New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007.

==External links==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073229/ IMDB Entry on "Katherine" movie]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Oughton, Diana}}
[[Category:COINTELPRO targets]]
[[Category:1942 births]]
[[Category:1970 deaths]]
[[Category:Weather Underground]]
[[Category:Bryn Mawr College alumni]]

Diana Oughton Gravesite: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=5184
Find A Grave

User talk:Indubitably

2008-10-07T14:32:30Z

76.224.68.237: add an acknowledgement

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T14:20:47Z

76.224.68.237: Undid revision 243657141 by Arcayne (talk)Reverting back to your personal version of this page is wrong. These are all good edits.

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T14:13:20Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ m

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.<ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T13:56:26Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ added specifics to criticism of choice of spokespeople

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign, as some of the celebrity's endorsing "PC" have been noted as an owner of the Apple Iphone (Williams), supportive of the Ipod (Chopra) or in the case of Longoria Parker, photographed carrying a Mac at an airport check-in counter.( <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T13:46:47Z

76.224.68.237: Undid revision 243649858 by Jennavecia (talk)This is not Vandalism, please do not revert good and well supported edits

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T13:33:38Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ Removed Seinfeld comment from "Criticism" Note: Seinfeld is not even in these commercials, he was in a completely different set previously with Gates.

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T12:49:00Z

76.224.68.237: Undid revision 243591279 by Arcayne (talk)Please address individual edits, These were quality contributions and not Vandalism

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's iconic TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was staged with a Macintosh displayed in the eponymous characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:49:28Z

76.224.68.237: /* Campaign */ condensed and streamlined prose

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's iconic TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was staged with a Macintosh displayed in the eponymous characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:44:36Z

76.224.68.237: added mention of series start time

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB). The series first began to appear in September, 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's iconic TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was staged with a Macintosh displayed in the eponymous characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:42:10Z

76.224.68.237: Citatations do not mention, nor support, a creation date at all.

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB).<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's iconic TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was staged with a Macintosh displayed in the eponymous characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:35:26Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ tweaked again

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's iconic TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was staged with a Macintosh displayed in the eponymous characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:32:35Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ improved readibility and clarity

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's iconic TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was staged with a Macintosh displayed in the characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:26:47Z

76.224.68.237: Removed statement of fact that was absolutely without foundation and nowhere to be found in the cited references

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September.<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from the TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was taped with a Macintosh displayed in the characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T01:18:49Z

76.224.68.237: Removed duplicate content and restated more efficiently using it to open campaign section

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September, 2008 in order to "[[maintenance, repair and operations|revamp]]" the reputation of the [[Windows Vista]] computer [[operating system]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref>

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]

The ad series features prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and has appearances by common international users as well as personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

The campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from the TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was taped with a Macintosh displayed in the characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T00:50:16Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ removed space

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September, 2008 in order to "[[maintenance, repair and operations|revamp]]" the reputation of the [[Windows Vista]] computer [[operating system]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref> It also featured prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and had appearances by personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]
The "I'm a PC" advertising campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/> The series of commercials also feature common international users as well as noted celebrities like Deepak Chopra, Rashad Evans, Geoff Green, Eva Longoria and Pharrell Williams, all noting "I'm a PC".

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from the TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was taped with a Macintosh displayed in the characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-07T00:46:05Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ m

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September, 2008 in order to "[[maintenance, repair and operations|revamp]]" the reputation of the [[Windows Vista]] computer [[operating system]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1">[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/24/1222216094448.html 'I'm a PC' made on a Mac], by Asher Moses, [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], September 24, 2008 ([http://www.thevine.com.au/news/articles/new-microsoft-ads-made-on-a-mac.aspx duplicate] on thevine.com.au)</ref> It also featured prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and had appearances by personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]
The "I'm a PC" advertising campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/> The series of commercials also feature common international users as well as noted celebrities like Deepak Chopra, Rashad Evans, Geoff Green, Eva Longoria and Pharrell Williams, all noting "I'm a PC".

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>



Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from the TV show ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was taped with a Macintosh displayed in the characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-06T23:49:23Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ phrasing and punctuation

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September, 2008 in order to "[[maintenance, repair and operations|revamp]]" the reputation of the [[Windows Vista]] computer [[operating system]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1"/> It also featured prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and had appearances by personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]
The "I'm a PC" advertising campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/> The series of commercials also feature common international users as well as noted celebrities like Deepak Chopra, Rashad Evans, Geoff Green, Eva Longoria and Pharrell Williams, all noting "I'm a PC".

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>



Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from the TV ''[[Seinfeld]]'' was taped with a Macintosh in the characters apartment.<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-06T23:47:10Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ Removed irrelevant comment, the ads don't promote microsoft for graphics editing, the general criticism remains - the bloggers comments add nothing and are unnecessary

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September, 2008 in order to "[[maintenance, repair and operations|revamp]]" the reputation of the [[Windows Vista]] computer [[operating system]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1"/> It also featured prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and had appearances by personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]
The "I'm a PC" advertising campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/> The series of commercials also feature common international users as well as noted celebrities like Deepak Chopra, Rashad Evans, Geoff Green, Eva Longoria and Pharrell Williams, all noting "I'm a PC".

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/>



Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from ''[[Seinfeld]]'' uses a Macintosh,<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]

I'm a PC

2008-10-06T23:42:53Z

76.224.68.237: /* Criticism */ added text to more accurately reflect the trace evidence and supporting conclusion.

{{POV|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:I'm.a.PC.stereotype.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Sean Siler, an actual Microsoft employee featured in the ad campaign]]
"'''I'm a PC'''" is the title for a television [[advertising campaign]] created for [[Microsoft]] by ad agency [[Crispin Porter + Bogusky]] (CPB) in mid-September, 2008 in order to "[[maintenance, repair and operations|revamp]]" the reputation of the [[Windows Vista]] computer [[operating system]].<ref>{{cite web
| last = Carlson
| first = Nicholas
| authorlink = http://valleywag.com/people/AlleyWag/posts/
| coauthors =
| title = Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials want you to "Think Different"
| work =
| publisher = Vallywag
| date = 19 Sept. 2008
| url = http://valleywag.com/5052167/microsofts-new-im-a-pc-commercials-want-you-to-think-different
| accessdate = 2008-09-30}}</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1">[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9115120 Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' ad images made on Macs], By Gregg Keizer, [[Computerworld]] ([http://www.pcworld.com/article/151315/macs_produced_part_of_microsofts_im_a_pc_ads.html Republished] on [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]], Spetember 20, 2008)</ref> The new series of commercials replace those that featured the pairing of [[Jerry Seinfeld]] and [[Bill Gates]].

The $300 million dollar advertising campaign was designed to challenge what critics call [[Apple Computer|Apple's]] "elitist Mac user vibe" "[[Get a Mac|Mac Vs. PC]]" campaign by showing everyday PC users, such as scientists and teachers, noting the virtues of their platform of choice.<ref name="smh.com1"/> It also featured prominent and popular individuals saying "I'm a PC" and had appearances by personalities such as medical doctor and writer [[Deepak Chopra]], ultimate fighter [[Rashad Evans]], actress [[Eva Longoria Parker]], photographer [[Geoff Green]] and singer [[Pharrell Williams]].

==Campaign==
[[Image:I'm a PC shark.jpg|thumb|"Meaghan" identifying himself as a PC user while underwater in a shark cage.]]
The "I'm a PC" advertising campaign was created by the CPB advertising agency and exhibited normal PC users to be found everywhere. It was the second phase of Microsoft's 2008 efforts to displace the ubiquity of Apple's "Mac Vs. PC" ads, which portrayed the Mac as "cool and intuitive" and the PC as "boring and clunky".<ref name="smh.com1"/> The Microsoft spots typically opened with an image of Sean Siler,<ref name="gizmodo.com1">[http://gizmodo.com/5052411/so-whats-up-with-that-new-im-a-pc-guy-anyway So What's Up With That New 'I'm a PC' Guy, Anyway?], By Mark Wilson, [[Gizmodo]], September 19, 2008</ref> a Microsoft employee claiming "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype".

The composition was made to be initially resemble that of the Apple campaign, as Siler bears a resemblance to [[John Hodgman]], the "PC" counterpart to [[Justin Long]] as a Mac in the Apple commercials.<ref name="upi.com1">[http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/21/Magazine_Microsoft_ad_uses_Mac_software/UPI-24661221976279/ Magazine: Microsoft ad uses Mac software], [[United Press International]]</ref><ref name="computerworld.com1"/> The series of commercials also feature common international users as well as noted celebrities like Deepak Chopra, Rashad Evans, Geoff Green, Eva Longoria and Pharrell Williams, all noting "I'm a PC".

The advertisements are also interspersed with various non-famous users who proclaim "I'm a PC" from a variety of places and in a number of methods. One such is user "Meaghan", displaying the words written on a [[whiteboard]] while underwater in a shark cage. When the shark bumps the cage, Meaghan flips the whiteboard over to display the additional, humorous message, "and I'm afraid". The intent is to demonstrate how PC users are ordinary people, contrasting the "Mac Vs. PC" campaign's negative portrayal of Windows users. <ref name="macnn.com1">[http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/09/22/im.a.pc.pics.made.on.a.mac/ 'I'm a PC' ad pictures made on a Mac], (MacNN.com)</ref>

==Criticism==

The campaign has been criticized for having used certain individuals that also may have a connection to various Apple products as well as its commercials being revealed to have been created, at least in part, on Apple computers.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/>

Shortly after the new campaign began investigation by various Internet groups determined that the series of "I'm a PC" commercials were created, at least in part, on Apple's Macintosh computers, using the [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]] graphics editing program, [[Photoshop#CS3|Photoshop CS3]].<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> Initially discovered by a [[Flickr]] user<ref name="fool.com1">[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/09/22/im-a-pc-made-on-a-mac.aspx I'm a PC, Made on a Mac], by Tim Beyers, [[Motley Fool]], September 22, 2008</ref> who noted traces of Apple's [[Mac OS X|operating system]] and Adobe's CS3 graphics program embedded within press-released images of the commercials. ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine concurs, noting that when the file properties of those images, made available on the Microsoft press site, are examined, the designation "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" can be seen.<ref name="computerworld.com1"/> After the discovery began circulating, Microsoft responded overnight by digitally [[Data scrubbing|scrubbing]] the Apple-related [[metadata]] from the images. <ref name="smh.com1"/><ref name="informationweek.com1">[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/im_a_pc_made_on.html 'I'm A PC' Made On A Mac], by Dave Methvin, [[InformationWeek]] blog, September 21, 2008</ref><ref name="roughlydrafted.com1">[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/19/microsofts-im-a-pc-ads-created-on-macs/ Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ Ads Created On Macs], by Daniel Eran Dilger (RoughlyDrafted.com), September 19th, 2008</ref>

In an official press release, Microsoft stated "As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."<ref name="smh.com1"/> John Paczkowski of ''Digital Daily'' notes that "(t)he irony is enough to make your head explode. The latest evolution of Microsoft’s (MSFT) new ad campaign–the one designed to seize back control of the Windows PC image that Apple has so mercilessly tarred and feathered–wasn’t even made on a PC."


Further criticism notes the choice of spokespeople used in the "I'm a PC" campaign. <ref name="smh.com1"/> Seinfeld's eponymous character from ''[[Seinfeld]]'' uses a Macintosh,<ref name="gawker.com">[http://gawker.com/5039828/mac+loving-seinfeld-endorsing-microsoft-for-10-million Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million], (gawker.com)</ref>.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/windows/imageGallery.aspx Microsoft's PressPass gallery, displaying the images]
*[http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldiazsantana/2869094754/ Flickr page noting the Apple OS and Adobe CS3 metadata]

[[Category:Advertising campaigns]]
[[Category:Television commercials]]
[[Category:Microsoft culture]]